Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Pensioners (Income Support)

Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement about the pilot study carried out by his Department in York to encourage take-up of income support by pensioners. [73038]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): As a Back-Bench Member for the City of York, I welcomed the Government's decision to pilot take-up activity in York. The outcome of a pilot in York, and in the eight other locations, is being analysed. Until the full evaluation is complete, the results will not be meaningful, and it would be premature to comment.

Mr. Grogan: Given that official estimates suggest that at least 500,000 pensioners do not claim the income support to which they are entitled, how many pensioners in York and North Yorkshire does my hon. Friend

estimate will be eligible for the Government's new minimum income guarantee when it becomes effective in April, and what plans does he have to use publicity to encourage them to claim their entitlement?

Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. When it is introduced, a minimum income guarantee will prove a real boon to the poorest pensioners, providing a minimum of £75 a week for single pensioners and £116.60 for couples. We estimate that approximately 4,000 pensioners will benefit from the minimum income guarantee in the York local authority district, and about 14,500 in North Yorkshire.

Oral Answers to Questions — Means-tested Benefits

Peter Viggers: What proportion of total payments made by his Department are means-tested. [73039]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The proportion of total social security expenditure going on means-tested benefits was 34 per cent. in 1997–98. In 1979, it was 16 per cent.

Mr. Viggers: Does the Secretary of State agree that means-tested benefits are much more expensive to administer than universal benefits and can be grossly unfair? Is it not a fact that someone who has saved for his or her retirement can actually be worse off than someone who has made no provision and who will get the benefit of the minimum income guarantee, together with housing benefits and council tax benefit? How can he possibly begin to justify that to decent and respectable people who want to remain independent?

Mr. Darling: If means-tested benefits are unfair, they were as unfair in 1979 as they are now. The hon. Gentleman supported the previous Government when they doubled the number of means-tested benefits.
When we came into office, we found that the disparity in income had grown dramatically over 18 years, and we deliberately set about doing far more for poorer people—


by introducing the working families tax credit, the disability income guarantee, the minimum income guarantee for pensioners and other measures. We have also increased universal benefits, such as child benefit, and our pensions proposals are designed to ensure that we end one of the great scandals of today—that more than a third of pensioners are likely to rely on income-related benefits when they retire. We aim to lift those people out of that position.
The Government are taking action across the board, but I do not agree that means-tested benefits are inherently wrong. They do a great deal to help the poorest people in our society.

Mr.Derek Twigg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the Tories talk about means-tested benefits, my constituents live in fear that they really want to talk about cutting benefits and attacking people in poverty? Is not the difference between the parties that, when the Labour party talks about means-testing, we talk about ensuring that those most in need get the benefits that they deserve?

Mr.Darling: The working families tax credit has a very flat taper; it is designed to help people who would not otherwise receive help, and to make work pay. We are determined to do—as we said that we would in our manifesto—far more to help the poorest pensioners, some of whom did very badly in the previous 18 years. Unlike the Conservative party, we are genuinely anxious to tackle not just the immediate effects of poverty but, above all, the causes of poverty, into which far too many people have fallen.

Mr.Quentin Davies: Is it not both unreasonable and thoroughly unfair that, according to the Government's proposals, the only pensioners who can look forward to their earnings in retirement being linked to average earnings will be those who qualify for income support—for the Government's so-called minimum income guarantee? Under the Government's proposals, nobody who has earned an occupational pension or a state retirement pension by contributing to the national insurance system for 40 years can dream of that measure of protection. Are not the Government thoroughly ashamed that, after all the rhetoric of the last Parliament and all the promises delivered by hundreds of Labour candidates before the general election, no move at all has been made to deliver on the promise to link the state retirement pension to earnings?

Mr.Darling: It is my recollection that the Conservative Government broke the earnings link with pensions in 1981, and we certainly made it very clear that we were not proposing to restore the earnings link with pensions. Instead, we have done two things. We have made proposals to put the long-term basis of pensions on a proper footing, with a new state second pension that will help those on the lowest earnings and that is designed to ensure that someone who works for a lifetime and saves during that period need not rely on income support at the point at which they retire. Our other proposals are all designed to alleviate the poverty that we inherited among pensioners and others. Across the board, the Government are determined not only to deal with the effects of poverty

but to mount a sustained attack on the causes of poverty by making work pay and helping others who are unable to work.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Would not the best way of achieving my right hon. Friend's aim of fewer pensioners reliant on income support and other means-tested benefits be to raise the level of the basic pension? The Conservative party broke the earnings link in 1980. If it had been maintained, the basic pension next month would be not £66 but £90. Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of the pensioners who will not receive the guaranteed minimum income—between 400,000 and 700,000 of them—are those who say, "For all our lives we have never taken any handouts and we will not start now"? They would accept an increase if it were an entitlement and on the basic pension, but they will not take it if it is on income support because they perceive it as a handout. We have enough money—more than £6 billion—and the cost would be £3 billion. Why do we not go some way towards undoing the damage done by the Conservative Government and raise the basic minimum pension to £75 this year?

Mr. Darling: The cost of increasing the pension to £75 this year would be substantial. I point out to my hon. Friend that more than half of those who do not receive the minimum income guarantee have excess capital of more than £20,000. About 190,000 people have capital of more than £50,000. In our pension proposals, we ensured that we had a new system through the state second pension that would benefit those who are on lower earnings throughout their lifetime. Alongside that is the £2.5 billion package that we announced last summer. We make no bones about it: we decided that, rather than spread the sum available far more thinly—something that would not have helped some of the poorest pensioners about whom my hon. Friend and I are most concerned— we would give far more help to those on lower incomes.
If we increased the basic state pension to £75 a week, that would cost about £3 billion. I believe that it is far better to spend our money helping those pensioners who did least well over the preceding 18 years, as well as putting into law proposals that will ensure that the problem is not so acute in years to come.

Oral Answers to Questions — Bereavement Benefits

Mr. David Rendel: What steps he is taking to improve the financial position of the bereaved. [73040]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The reforms in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill will provide specific help for the first time to widowers as well as widows. The new lump sum bereavement payment at £2,000 will be double the value of the existing widow's payment. Our aim is to concentrate help where and when it is most needed at the time immediately following bereavement and on those with children.

Mr. Rendel: I know that the Department received a letter from Captain Mongor pointing out that, as recently as September 1998, it wrote telling him that his widow would get the full additional pension even if he died after


she was aged 55, something that will not happen until the year 2004. Given that the Government have rightly insisted on the private sector compensating people who have been mis-sold private pensions, what will the Government do to compensate people such as Captain Mongor—there may be millions of them—who have been given false information by the Department about what would happen to their widows and the additional pensions that their widows are due to get?

Mr. Timms: This is another measure inherited from the previous Government. Many people knew about the change and made plans accordingly, but it is the case that Department of Social Security leaflets were not updated until 1996. We are investigating why that was so. I can tell the House that we shall consider a claim for compensation from anyone who can establish that he or she received advice that did not reflect the change from April 2000 and, as a result, acted to their detriment. We shall be announcing further details shortly.

Mr. Frank Field: One promise in "New Contract for Welfare", is that
people can have greater confidence that they will get proper protection in return for the contributions they make.
How does my hon. Friend square that with the proposals to strip out coverage for widows benefits, even though many people have paid 30 years' contributions for that cover?

Mr. Timms: The coverage is being extended to widowers. It will be a new contributory benefit for widowers. Those with children will continue to receive non-means-tested help until the youngest child for whom they are responsible ceases full-time education. The income support safety net will be in place for those who are older than 55 when the measures are introduced and who are widowed in the following five years. We are concentrating help—I think that my right hon. Friend will support this—on those who at the time need it most.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to the highly pertinent inquiry from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), how does the Minister seriously expect to eradicate the something-for-nothing culture if he continues to pursue his reform of widows pensions in such a way as completely to undermine the contributory principle and to leave worse off no fewer than 250,000 women the length and breadth of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Timms: I have made the point that there is a new contributory benefit for widowers. There has been no such measure before; we are introducing one. It is time-limited, but not means-tested. All widows will receive non-means-tested benefit for six months to help during the transition, and those with children will continue to receive non-means-tested help until the youngest child ceases full-time education. We are modernising the system. Now, seven in 10 married women are in work. When the original system was introduced, the proportion was very much lower. We must change the system to reflect the changing times in which we live.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, for the first time, widows and widowers will get comprehensive assistance via the single

gateway and special advisers to help them through the maze of the benefit system? Will my hon. Friend comment on a second issue: if it is so crucial to the Liberals that recently bereaved widows are looked after, why is there no provision for that in their Budget, which was issued this morning?

Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I looked carefully through the documents issued this morning by the Liberal Democrats to see whether the matter was dealt with there. My hon. Friend is right—it is not. He is also right about the extra help that we are making available through the single work-focused gateway. That is an extremely important change, which will help many thousands of people. It is important for the House to know, too, that we are doubling the lump sum that will be payable to both widows and widowers on bereavement.

Oral Answers to Questions — New Deal (Lone Parents)

Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for lone parents. [73041]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The new deal for lone parents is providing active support to help lone parents to move into work. As of 29 January, more than 163,000 initial letters have been issued; more than 39,000 lone parents have attended interviews and, of those, 32,000 have agreed to participate in the programme; and more than 6,000 jobs have been obtained by lone parents.

Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for that interesting response. On 29 April last year, when the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) appeared before the Select Committee on Education and Employment, some 6 per cent. of those who received letters were finding work. The right hon. Lady told me on that occasion that the number was increasing exponentially. I understand from the latest figures that 3.8 per cent. of those receiving letters are finding work. Perhaps the right hon. Lady meant that the number was decreasing exponentially. In any case, do not the figures demonstrate that the scheme is a £200 million failure that needs urgent review?

Angela Eagle: No. The hon. Gentleman has been doing rather odd mathematics. Why divide the number of letters issued by the number of jobs obtained? That seems a meaningless calculation. The fact is that the Government are doing something to help lone parents to get back into work. The previous Government did nothing but scapegoat them.

Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Minister share the concern of a number of organisations that represent single parents about the proposal in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that single parents should be subjected to a series of compulsory interviews? Does she agree that it is no business of a Labour Government to imply or suggest that the only way for mothers with children under five to improve their lot is to go out to work?

Angela Eagle: I do not share that concern, because I think that it is based on a misunderstanding of the single


work focus gateway proposals. No mother of children under five would be made to attend an interview unless she were applying for extra benefits. The idea of the interview is to assist her in getting into work or becoming more employable for when she decides that it is right for her to take up work. There will be no compulsion to act, or to look for a job, as a result of the interview. We hope that the interviews will help the 1.8 million children who are being raised on income support in poverty, and will assist the 1.6 million lone parents to improve their lot, enabling them to look after their children and move off benefit into work, so that they can give their children much better chances in life.

Mr. Eric Pickles: If the calculation is as meaningless as the Minister suggests, she should understand that it is the Government's calculation. What is meaningless is the amount of wasted money that has gone on the scheme—£200 million, which is a cost of £15,000 a job. The simple truth is that those who wanted to get a job have got one, which is why the figure has gone down from 7 to 3.8 per cent. Does she understand that the only reason why this flagship policy has not sunk without trace is that there has never been sufficient water under it to allow it to float?

Angela Eagle: One of the largest causes of poverty among our children—something that surely concerns the hon. Gentleman—is the fact that 60 per cent. of lone parent households are workless. We are trying to tackle the problem of workless households by giving lone parents the chance to get back into work so that they can provide for their children at much higher levels of income than income support could ever give them. That is what we are doing; the Tory record is one of total neglect and scapegoating.
We are trying to do something to get lone parents back into work. The new deal for lone parents will be properly assessed in the autumn and there will be an independent assessment of how it is working. We shall look at how it is doing then. I do not like taking lectures from a member of a party that, when it was in office, did absolutely nothing but condemn lone parents to a lifetime on benefit.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Brazier.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The answer to the—I am sorry, Question 5.

Oral Answers to Questions — Single Gateway

Mr. Julian Brazier: If he will make a statement on progress towards introduction of the single gateway to benefit. [73042]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): A seamless move from Question 4 to Question 5. Our plans for the introduction of the single work-focused gateway are on course.

Mr. Brazier: The answer to an earlier question established that the voluntary principle is doing nothing to the new deal. What is the point in introducing compulsory gateway interviews for single parents and other categories of people who are not compulsorily required to take a job? Is the whole mass of exemptions under clause 47

of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill a sign that the Government are starting to change their mind? How much will it all cost?

Angela Eagle: I wish that Conservative Members would not dismiss as nothing the 39,000 lone parents who have had an interview so far and nearly 30,000 people who have joined the new deal for lone parents, let alone the 6,262 lone parents who are in work as a result of the new deal. The idea of the single work-focused gateway is to give individual, tailored help to people who may have been away from the labour market for a long time and to give them a strategic direction so that they can plan, when their children are old enough, to get back into the labour market and support themselves and their children.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: On Friday, I visited a project in Burnt Oak in my constituency, which is run by Hendon college and involves working with the older age group of unemployed people. One of the big complaints that came through to me from the clients and the staff at the project was the lack of a gateway for the older age group. Will my hon. Friend the Minister take that on board and make sure that we do the best that we possibly can for people in the older age group—they face all sorts of barriers, including age discrimination—and start to broaden the gateway?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend correctly identifies the fact that people appreciate having a personal adviser and individualised help in a confusing system of benefits and a difficult and fast-changing labour market. That is something that we have learned from the new deal, and we are anxious to extend it to the benefits system, where it will be widely welcomed.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is not the reality that the Government are in a complete mess over their programme—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"] They do not like it, but we have a gateway programme and the Bill is going through Parliament, although the Government still do not understand or admit how much that will cost. They set no targets for the increase in the number of jobs that they want to achieve. There are 1 million lone parents on income support, but there is no comment about how many of them the Government expect to get into work. We have heard about the £200 million cost of the new deal for lone parents, which is wasted, and that 3.8 per cent. of lone parents get into work, although nearly one fifth of them fall away from work after six months. Must not the Government now accept that they have no joined-up thinking in that regard? They have two programmes aimed at two groups, and they are failing. It is the Government who are doing nothing: they raise expectations, and then dash them by failing.

Angela Eagle: The single work-focused gateway is a pilot scheme. In fact, there will be 12 pilot schemes, to enable us to learn how best—

Mr. Eric Pickles: Make it up as you go along.

Angela Eagle: We are not making it up as we go along; we are ensuring that the changes that we are to make will work, and can be properly costed and planned. That is responsible government.
The hon. Gentleman needs to understand this. We believe that benefit claimants, as well as those who have been unemployed and are taking advantage of the new deal, will find personal adviser interviews and individualised assistance beneficial. As I have said, the single work-focused gateway involves pilot schemes, which will take place in 12 different areas over the next two or three years, and we have set aside £80 million for the purpose. We will evaluate and assess the pilot schemes, and will then be able to tell the House how we can transform our benefit system into an active system that will help individuals, rather than just doling out money and leaving them floundering.

Oral Answers to Questions — Minimum Pension Guarantee

Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on the review of the savings allowance in relation to the minimum pension guarantee. [73043]

Sir Sydney Chapman: What assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of a minimum pension guarantee on low earners' savings. [73048]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We made clear in the pensions Green Paper that we want to look at options for changing the rules on the treatment of voluntary saving better to reward those who have saved for their retirement.

Mr. Rammell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I fully support the Government's policy of aiming support at the poorest pensioners in the initial stages of the current Parliament, and decry the selective amnesia of the Opposition. A huge expansion of means-tested benefits took place when they were in power; now, they have suddenly discovered that they have problems with that.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a problem for pensioners with relatively few savings who feel that they have played by the rules, but who are now finding that those relatively small sums disbar them from additional state support? May I strongly urge the Government to take that factor into account in the review?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend has made two good points. First, I think that we all take with a pinch of salt some of what is now being said by the Conservative party, and what will be said in the "kitchen table" talks that it is introducing. Secondly, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that we need to ensure that someone who has saved, and has a modest amount of capital or income, will not be penalised on that account. As we made clear in the pensions Green Paper, we are determined to act.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Given the Secretary of State's acceptance that the introduction of a minimum pension guarantee will lead to a distinct disincentive for those earning below the average to save, and given that it will lead to a massive increase in means-testing and more dependency on the state, will the right hon. Gentleman

have a quiet word with the Chancellor in the next 24 hours, to ensure that he addresses those very real problems?

Mr. Darling: I think that the hon. Gentleman was a Whip during much of the last Government, and he did nothing about the problems about which he now complains.
We recognise that there is a problem for pensioners with income and capital, and we are therefore determined to do something about it. In regard to the minimum income guarantee, we—unlike the Conservative party— recognise that there are many pensioners who are poor, and who need immediate help. The guarantee means that we are giving to the poorest pensioners real help, which many of them greatly appreciate and which, sadly, many of them greatly need.

Mr. Steve Webb: I restate my support for the Government's decision to link the minimum income guarantee to earnings. However, does the Secretary of State accept that an anomaly is being created? The overall aim of the policy is to ensure that people reach retirement age with an income above the minimum income guarantee level, but, in written answers to me, he has suggested that they will be below that level within five years of retirement. As the guarantee rises in line with earnings, and all other pension incomes rise in line with prices, people could slip back down later in their retirement. Is the right hon. Gentleman concerned about that, and does he plan to do something about it?

Mr. Darling: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman—I assume that he speaks for the whole Liberal Democrat party on the issue—[Interruption.] Obviously not. I appreciate what he said. Most sensible commentators, and he is clearly one, recognise the value of linking the minimum income guarantee to earnings.
On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, our object is to ensure that, during their lifetime, people save as much as they possibly can, so that they do not have to rely on income-related benefit. With people living longer— sometimes for 20 or 30 years after retirement—that means that there has to be substantial saving. One of the things that we are doing that will help people who can save but do not, is to ensure that they receive an annual pension statement, which will concentrate some people's minds in a way that has not happened.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Only this morning, before coming to the House, I met a group of pensioners in Croydon. The main issue that they raised was the perceived unfairness of the position of those people who, for either income or capital reasons, were just above the means-tested income support level.
One elderly woman, a widow, said that she had put aside savings so that she could do repairs to her home, if those were necessary. Because of those savings, she was debarred from income support. I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the savings trap and our need to spring it. It cannot be right that those who are the most responsible and thrifty among the elderly population are penalised, rather than supported.

Mr. Darling: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Without wishing to labour the point, let me say that the


Government are considering how best to deal with that matter. The problem of people who are nearly poor is one that has concerned many of us for some considerable time, but I emphasise that, given the situation that we inherited, where there were many extremely poor pensioners, to do something quickly to help those most in need, it was necessary to introduce the minimum income guarantee, as well as the other measures that we have taken: free eye tests for pensioners, concessionary travel, winter fuel payments and so on. Taken together, those measures are a significant boost for pensioners, but I take the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has put pensioners in an expensive mess? The very fact that he has to look at the savings trap shows that the Government blundered into the whole business of the minimum income guarantee without thinking through the effects of what they were about to do. It will lead to increasing dependency.
Let the Secretary of State ask himself what the Government have done for pensioners. When they first came in, they taxed £5 billion a year off pension holders, which means that pensioners will be up to 15 per cent. worse off on their incomes after retirement. Not only is the budget rising by £37 billion a year, but the Government's response to that is to increase dependency through the minimum income guarantee, increase the cost further and so increase the overall cost of welfare.
The Prime Minister promised to cut the cost and the Secretary of State is raising it. We have heard of dumbing down, but surely that is dumb government.

Mr. Darling: Discussion over the breakfast table in the household must be absolutely fascinating.
The Conservatives have to face up to two points. First, the income and capital rules have been there for some considerable time. In fact, they were there during the whole time that the Conservatives were in office, and they did nothing about them.
Secondly, if we had not changed the way in which pension provision is made for the future, one person in three who is now working would rely on income-related benefits—in other words, the means test that the hon. Gentleman complains about. What we have done is to ensure that, where people work throughout their life, they are rewarded by not having to rely on income-related benefits when they retire.
The minimum income guarantee was introduced to tackle a real problem: there are far too many poor pensioners.[Interruption.] One would think that the Conservative party—I know that Conservative Members have been told this in their new presentation—had arrived on the planet only last week. They were not only on the planet; they were in government for 18 years, during which time they did nothing for poorer pensioners.
I am more than happy to be judged on the fact that I am part of a Government who introduced the minimum income guarantee, reduced VAT on fuel, introduced free eye tests for pensioners and extended concessionary travel. The present Government are determined to do far more for pensioners—for whom the Conservative party did absolutely nothing.

Oral Answers to Questions — Child Support Agency

Mr. Denis MacShane: What plans he has to reform the administration of the CSA. [73044]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The Green Paper published last year stated our proposals for radical reform of the discredited child support system. We also made it clear that we would be expecting the Child Support Agency to make substantial improvements before the reforms took effect. Considerable progress has already been made. Planned changes for the coming year include a much improved face-to-face service; simplification of the decision-making and appeals process; introduction of improved arrangements for dealing with the self-employed; and clearer and simpler communication.

Mr. MacShane: I welcome the Minister's reply. Does she agree with two main points on the CSA? First, since the agency was established six years ago, it has done nothing to slow the break-up of families, or the relentless rise in lone parenthood and school-age pregnancies—the three major by-products of the Conservative era. Secondly, perhaps the agency's greatest failure is the fact that the proportion of lone parents on benefit who receive maintenance from absent fathers is now no higher than it was in 1993.
I welcome the report in today's newspapers about lone parents on low incomes and in work keeping more of their child maintenance. Will the Government consider extending those arrangement to unemployed single mothers—they should be able to keep as much of their child maintenance as is equivalent to child benefit—and ring-fencing that maintenance in detachment of earnings orders, so that fathers understand that some of their money is going directly to their children and not to the Treasury?

Angela Eagle: Although my hon. Friend is right about the proportion of parents with care who are currently receiving maintenance, he must also understand that there has been a 60 per cent. increase in case load. We are expecting the case load for the CSA to pass the 1 million mark before the end of the year. Although it is much more effective than it was, it is saddled with a very difficult system of child maintenance assessment, which we are in the middle-via our Green Paper—of attempting to simplify. We shall, in due course, be introducing those changes.
I also thank my hon. Friend for noticing the announcements on a 100 per cent disregard for women lone parents who are receiving working families tax credit. The disregard should provide them with a huge incentive to go into work. I hope that my hon. Friend will also recognise that there is a £10 disregard for parents with care who are on benefit. Therefore, absent fathers can see that some of their maintenance money is going for the upkeep of their children.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Lady accept from me that improvements in how the CSA works are greatly to be welcomed? However, will she also agree that part of the problem for all our constituents is the inconsistency in the service that they receive from the CSA? Although the training programmes that have been established are undoubtedly yielding great benefits, will


she talk to the head of the CSA to determine what can be done to achieve, through training, greater and more skilful communication with our constituents—who often have to ring up and deal with the CSA while under great stress?

Angela Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that child maintenance is a very delicate, difficult and complex issue, and welcome his acknowledgement that the CSA is making strides in how it deals with the issue, particularly through greater telephone contact. We are just completing assessments of pilots on joint Benefits Agency-CSA work, which relies on tele-claiming. We have also allocated £12 million extra to improve the direct client service this year. Those improvements are now showing results.
As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), however, the CSA has a very difficult task in attempting to assess child maintenance using the very complex formula established in primary legislation. I do not believe that we shall make any real breakthrough until we have managed to change the formula, for which we shall require primary legislation.

Mr. Terry Rooney: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the proposals in the Green Paper will cut off the dozens of escape routes in information flow that are exercised by absent parents and that proposals will also be made to alter dramatically the ratio of staff time spent on chasing that information to time spent on collection?

Angela Eagle: Yes. I believe that with a simpler assessment process the CSA will be able to change the current situation—90 per cent. of time spent on assessing maintenance and only 10 per cent. of time spent collecting it—to a more healthy state of affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — Older Pensioners

Mr. Simon Hughes: What plans he has for increasing assistance to older pensioners. [73045]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The minimum income guarantee is being set at a higher level for older pensioners. It will be £75 a week for a single pensioner just above retirement age, but £77.30 a week for a single pensioner aged 75 to 79 and £82.25 a week for a pensioner aged 80 or over.

Mr. Hughes: That is welcome. However, what would the Minister say to pensioners over 75 throughout the country who do not want to go through the means-testing process, those who cannot do so and those who discover that their small life savings or a small occupational pension would result in them getting no minimum income guarantee top-up, leaving them with no additional basic state pension? There is not a single paragraph in the Green Paper on older pensioners' entitlements. Does that mean that the Government have excluded once and for all increasing the basic state pension for older pensioners and are going to leave them with the 25p for the over 80s, which they regard as a simple insult?

Mr. Timms: I am aware of the proposals in the document produced this morning by the Liberal

Democrats for higher rates of state pension for older pensioners. That would be an expensive measure that would provide no help to older pensioners already on income support, which cannot be right. We acknowledged in our election manifesto that there was a problem with the number of people who claim the minimum income guarantee. We have carried out pilot projects trying out ways to encourage benefit take-up among pensioners. When the evaluation is complete we shall learn the lessons for encouraging wider take-up. It is right to concentrate extra help on those who need it most.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents die sooner than those who live in the more salubrious suburbs of Glasgow? Does he accept that there is a strong connection between prosperity and longevity? It would be unfair for money to be targeted on those who happen to live longer. Does he accept that it is essential that those who are in need receive money and that the Government's targeting process of giving more money to those in need is a far fairer way of distributing the money available?

Mr. Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend. Even the least well-off pensioners should share in rising national prosperity. That is why it is right to aim to link the level of the minimum income guarantee with average earnings. I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats have endorsed that policy today.

Oral Answers to Questions — Minimum Pension Guarantee

Mr. Nigel Waterson: What representations he has received about the minimum guaranteed pension. [73046]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We have received a number of items of correspondence about the minimum income guarantee, including some responses to our proposals for pension reform, which I published last December.

Mr. Waterson: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that his minimum pension guarantee is nothing of the sort? Some 600,000 pensioners in this country with a weekly income of less than £75 will not receive a top-up because they have been prudent enough to save during their working life.

Mr. Darling: Listening to the Conservatives this afternoon, I assume that they would get rid of the minimum income guarantee, which would be a great pity. We are ensuring that a single pensioner will get £75 a week and a married couple will get £116.60. That is far more than they would ever have received relying on earnings-related benefits. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that in his constituency and throughout the country, one of the problems that we, as a civilised society, have to face is that far too many pensioners have nothing. We were determined to end that scandal.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the 18 years that I sat on the Opposition Benches, I never heard a single complaint from Conservative Members about means-testing? What we are hearing today is unique for Labour Members who have served in Parliament for quite a time.
Having said that, does my right hon. Friend accept that much needs to be done for pensioners who, in some cases, are just above the income support level? They are having tremendous difficulties and I believe that their complaints have much justification. I hope that the Budget will offer help to those people, who are being punished—as they were under the Conservatives—for being poor, but who are just above the level described by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Darling: As I have made clear, I am aware of the problems of people with modest incomes and capital, to which my hon. Friend has referred. He is also right on another point: the Conservatives were quiet about means-testing for the 18 years before 1997 because they doubled the incidence of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — War Disablement Pensions

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on his plans for war disablement pensions. [73047]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I would like to pay tribute to all those members of the armed forces who have been disabled or whose partners have been bereaved as a result of their service. It is only because of their courage and sacrifice that Members of this House have the democratic liberty to stand for election, and freedom of speech when we get here. We will ensure that the war pensions scheme remains available to them and to future generations of service personnel.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Just before the election, the then Leader of the Opposition described the Conservative Government's policy on disablement pensions for those suffering from deafness as shabby and mean-minded. We now learn from a press release—issued eight days after this question was tabled—that the present Government have no plans to change that policy in respect of deafness on medical grounds. Is that because the Government, too, now regard themselves as shabby and mean-minded, or is it a vindication of the policy of the previous Government? Is it not truly shabby and mean-minded to raise false hopes among war veterans a few months before an election, and then to take two years to come to grips with the facts, during which time many of those veterans— including some constituents of mine—have been waiting for their appeals to be heard?

Mr. Bayley: When in opposition, we pledged to undertake a review of the changes introduced by the Conservatives to the war pensions scheme. That review took place immediately after the election, and was timely.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: And?

Mr. Bayley: I can tell the Opposition spokesman that that review came up with two conclusions. First, that the deafness attributable to war service and the deafness later in life attributable to ageing was no more than additive. Secondly, it was decided that a further review would take place within a year. The further review was delivered to the Department 10 days ago, and we made its results available to the House last Tuesday.

Mr. Peter L Pike: My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to the sacrifice made during the war by many
people who fought for democracy and freedom in Europe. Does he recognise that many of those people, for various reasons, failed to make early claims to get the pensions to which they were entitled? Is he aware that the Royal British Legion and many other organisations are fighting for those people, who are getting older? Many veterans and their widows die before their cases are heard. Will he do everything possible to expedite these cases to ensure that people get the payments to which they are entitled as speedily as possible?

Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There has been a serious backlog in appeals for war pensions. On 31 March 1997, there were 9,619 appeals outstanding. By April last year, we had managed to reduce that to just over 5,000. At that stage, we introduced a number of additional measures to speed up the hearing of war pensions appeals. As of 28 February 1999—the date on which the latest figure was available—the total was 2,917. We recognise that, although much lower than the figure that we inherited, that is still too many. The War Pensions Agency has commissioned Ernst and Young to undertake a review of the overall decision-making and appeals process, and we will announce the outcome when the review is completed.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that all hon. Members greatly respect those who have been disabled as a result of service in the armed forces. Is the Minister aware that many people—including, for example, members of the British Legion—feel aggrieved because their pensions are at nowhere near the levels paid in other European countries? Is a review being conducted of the level of pensions?

Mr. Bayley: The payments under our war pensions scheme are considerably more generous than those in other parts of our social security system. For instance, a single man who is severely disabled and is in the war pensions scheme will receive just over £400 a week, which is substantially more than would be paid under the industrial injuries arrangements, and substantially more— more than twice as much—than what would be paid in basic non-income-related state benefits. We believe that the scheme is generous and that its generosity must be maintained, because those who are injured as a result of service to our country should be generously rewarded.

Oral Answers to Questions — Benefit Integrity Project

Mr. Mark Oaten: If he will make a statement on the savings achieved as a result of the benefit integrity project. [73049]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The most recent estimate of benefit savings from the benefit integrity project is £8 million for 1997–98 and £30 million for 1998–99. A further estimate of the savings will be calculated following the cessation of the scheme at the end of March.

Mr. Oaten: Does the Minister expect the replacement system for BIP to result in more or less savings?

Mr. Bayley: We are not setting out on the scheme simply to make savings. We want to introduce a fairer system that will allow people on disability living allowance to have their award increased when their mobility or care needs increase, as well as allowing decreases when needs decrease. The benefit integrity project, which we inherited from our predecessors, was unfair because, in effect, it allowed only reductions. Our scheme will allow appropriate adjustments up or down.

Mrs. Theresa May: As the Minister has just admitted, the benefit integrity project achieved relatively little savings and caused untold anxiety and hardship for many disabled people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who started it?"] The scheme was operated for nearly two years by the Labour Government, regardless of all the complaints from hon. Members of all parties asking the Government to suspend it. Will the Minister confirm that the replacement scheme, the periodic review system, will lead to more reviews, affecting more disabled people; that the decision-making process will be the same as for the benefit integrity project; and that, if the new review process also leads to anxiety and hardship among disabled people, he will stop it, regardless of the saving?

Mr. Bayley: I find it quite extraordinary that the hon. Lady should make such a broadside attack on a change to the benefits system that her party introduced. We acknowledge that the system was flawed, and that is why we have changed it. The scheme saved £30 million in 1998–99, which she described as relatively little savings. That is in stark contrast to statements from other Conservative Front Benchers about the need to get the level of payments of all benefits right, which is what we intend to do.
When we introduce the new system, which we are developing in consultation with the voluntary bodies, we will do so slowly and carefully, and ensure that it beds down well. If the Conservatives had developed their scheme, the benefit integrity project, in consultation with the voluntary bodies representing disabled people, we might not have had so many problems with it.

Mr. Syd Rapson: May I congratulate the Benefits Agency on its sting operation over the weekend in Portsmouth, in which it targeted people returning from abroad who claim disability benefits but who had full sets of tools in their possession? They are now being investigated for fraud. Does my hon. Friend agree that every pound taken through fraud is stealing from the people who need it most?

Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend could not be more right, and it is disgraceful that people make false claims for benefits. It is good that he should congratulate the Benefits Agency on its successful work to ensure that benefits are paid to those entitled to them, and it shows that the agency is doing its job.

Oral Answers to Questions — Disabled People

13.Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What he is doing to improve the living standards of the poorest disabled people. [73050]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security(Mr. Hugh Bayley): Our proposals for a new disability income guarantee, together with measures in the Welfare Reform Bill, will provide more help for disabled adults and children who most need it, to enable them to live independently and with dignity.

Mr. Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that some people will never be able to work, because of the nature of their disability? In view of that, does he also agree that the minimum income guarantee should be updated regularly and will he undertake to do that?

Mr. Bayley: Yes. The Government's policy is work for those who are able to work and security through the benefits system for those who are unable to work. We recognise that work will never be an option for many people on disability benefits and we must ensure that the poorest of those get more support, which is what the minimum income guarantee seeks to achieve. At current prices, when it is introduced it will add £5.75 a week to the basic disability premium and £8.30 a week for couples.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will penalties be imposed on those disabled people who fail to turn up for interview? Will they lose their benefits, and if so, for how long?

Mr. Bayley: The proposals for attending a single gateway interview are before the House as part of the Welfare Reform Bill and they will be discussed in Committee. It is the Government's view that it should be a requirement for disabled people, as for others entering the single gateway, to attend an interview. Claimants are already required to do certain things before they are entitled to their money—for example, to fill in the application forms appropriately—and we believe that it makes sense for them to attend an interview. However, for disabled people, there will be no requirement to seek work or take a job if that is not appropriate given their condition.

Oral Answers to Questions — Annuities

Ms Gisela Stuart: What plans he has to abolish the vesting requirements on annuities. [73051]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): There are no such plans. The Inland Revenue rules require that personal pension and money purchase occupational pension funds must be used to buy an annuity at retirement. The exception is when a personal pension fund is used for income draw-down whereby income is drawn directly from the fund. Although that means that annuity purchase is deferred, an annuity must be purchased by the age of 75.

Ms Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, annuity rates are at a historical low. The Government should be congratulated on their economic policies, which have brought an end to the boom and bust of the Tory years, but those policies will ensure a continued climate of low returns—although current pensioners should not be discouraged from taking


annuities. Is there a case for examining whether the age for vesting in annuities should be extended beyond 75, or for reconsidering easing the draw-down facilities and making the process easier for those over 75?

Mr. Timms: I recognise that many people have been disappointed by the fall in annuity rates, but they have enjoyed the benefits of substantial stock market growth so their funds are bigger than might once have been expected. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Government's success in managing the economy and that can be expected to continue. Inflation is lower and stable so that annuities keep their value better. My hon. Friend is an acknowledged expert on these matters and I am always interested in her ideas, but I cannot see a practical alternative to the present framework. Life offices which provide annuities have a good record of reliability, which is an important point in favour of the existing system.

Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Minister accept that there is widespread pressure to abolish the obligation to buy an annuity at 75? In addition, will he accept that profits-linked annuities suffer from rules that discourage their usage? Given the enormous increase in the volume of money purchase pensions required, will the Government consider both the ability of the annuity industry to cope and the possibility of increasing the opportunities for draw-downs?

Mr. Timms: It is an important principle that since pensions savings are tax free, they must eventually be converted into an income stream so that tax may be paid on them. Of course, we always keep these matters under review, but, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), the present system is the only practical one available.

Countryside (Access) 22

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
In our manifesto, we gave a commitment to give people greater freedom to explore our open countryside, balanced by the needs to protect the environment and to avoid any abuse of greater access. I am pleased to announce to the House today the Government's plan for England and Wales to honour our commitment. A number of documents, including "Framework for Action", will be available in the Vote Office when I have completed the statement.
Securing greater access to open countryside will bring tremendous benefits, and new opportunities for improving people's health—physical and mental. It will enable everybody to experience the wonders of wildlife and beautiful landscapes.
Over the past 50 years, a voluntary approach has delivered relatively little. Despite some commendable initiatives, there is little prospect of much new access being provided voluntarily in future. Even if much more access could be secured by voluntary means, it would not be permanent and the costs would be high. Only a new statutory right will deliver cost-effectively the extent and permanence of access that we seek.
There has been much ill-informed speculation that the Government would not introduce a statutory right of access. I can confirm that we have decided to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows to provide for a general statutory right of area access coupled with responsibilities for walkers to respect the rights of landowners and managers.
The legislation will include improvements to the rights of way system. The comprehensive package will provide fresh opportunities for walking and other recreational pursuits, while taking the legitimate interests of land managers fully into account.
The new statutory right of access will apply to mountain, moor, heath and down, subject to mapping by the new Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales, and to registered common land. That amounts to about 4 million acres. The right may be extended to other types of open country, such as some woodland. It will apply to access on foot for open-air recreation.
The Government studied more than 2,000 responses to our consultation document. We talked to a range of organisations, visited key sites and commissioned research into the costs and benefits of different approaches. We are convinced that legislation is the only way to make sure that people will be free in perpetuity to explore open countryside.
However, we accept that there are real concerns about the impact of a new statutory right. Therefore, the statutory right will be subject to proper and reasonable limitations, and there will be codes of practice. It will not apply to developed land, or to agricultural land, except that used for extensive grazing. There is no question of giving people a right to trample over crops, or through other people's gardens. There will be strict restrictions on dogs.
Land may be closed when necessary for health, safety or defence reasons. In addition, the new Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and national park authorities will be able to authorise closures or restrictions to protect wildlife or historic interest, or for land management reasons, as long as the landowner can demonstrate that the restriction is necessary.
We attach considerable importance to local agreement being reached whenever possible, and we shall promote local access forums, with all the main interests represented, to advise on the details of any local limitations before the right comes into force. The aim of the forum will be to achieve consensus, but no member of the forum will have a final veto. The forums will be advisory; the decisions will be for the statutory agencies.
In addition, land managers will be able to close land temporarily without prior consent for a number of days each year. We propose to set the annual limit initially at 28 days, primarily for land management purposes, although landowners will also be able to close land for other reasons for up to 12 of the 28 days. If necessary, provision will be made to ensure that access is not restricted unreasonably at peak times.
Let me now deal with rights of way. We want to strengthen and develop the rights of way network to enable it to respond to the changing requirements of recreational use and the needs of land managers. Before concluding the detail of new legislation, we shall consider recommendations from the Countryside Commission and seek further views. There is no question of failing to secure the proper recording and maintenance of rights of way, or of reducing the overall value of the rights of way network.
Experience in Scotland and in Wales has shown that much consensus can also be achieved at national level. Therefore, we propose to ask the Countryside Agency to establish a national access forum in England. In Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales will be asked to consider how best to develop the existing informal arrangements.
It will be clear from my statement so far that the new Countryside Agency will play an important role in implementing the new statutory right, as well as in promoting sustainable rural development and protecting our finest landscapes. I can announce today that Ewen Cameron has been appointed to chair the agency: he has made it clear that he enthusiastically supports the Government's access proposals. We have also appointed Pamela Warhurst, who is currently leader of Calderdale council, as deputy chair. She will play a leading role in the agency's implementation of the access package.
Although there will be some extra costs for local authorities and statutory agencies, for which we shall make provision, we do not expect our legislative proposals to have major financial consequences. Nevertheless, the benefits of the basic statutory right and of the rights of way network will be much enhanced by further expenditure on, for example, the provision of additional routes and readily available information.
The lottery has already made a considerable contribution to improving access to the countryside. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will ask the lottery distributors to consider ways in which their funding might contribute further. We are also considering what part the new opportunities fund,


through the proposed green spaces initiative, might be able to play. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will ensure that targeting of the access elements of agri-environment schemes contributes to the overall strategy. In Wales, it will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
Almost 50 years ago, a Labour Government introduced legislation to safeguard our finest countryside and to open it to the nation. The largely voluntary approach to access in the National Parks and Access to the Open Countryside Act 1949 has proved inadequate. Glorious parts of our heritage are still the preserve of the few, not the delight of the many. As soon as parliamentary time permits, we will introduce legislation to remedy that. We look forward to discussing widely the details of the package, but we are firm on the principles. This balanced package fully meets the commitment that we gave in our manifesto and will be a lasting tribute to the memory of John Smith. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support it.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the Minister for the Environment for letting me have a copy of his statement half an hour in advance—although that obviously did not give me time to examine the accompanying documents.
The Opposition strongly support increased access to the countryside, based on voluntary co-operation set within a secure legal framework to define rights and responsibilities that would allow mutual respect to flourish. We believe that the work done by landowners and others has demonstrated that voluntary arrangements can deliver greatly increased access, and we deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to alienate the very people who have done so much to improve access in all parts of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman's tone this afternoon may have more to do with his Back-Bench problems than increasing access to the countryside. No doubt his hon. Friends will judge his proposals by the parliamentary timetable that he is able to achieve to put them into practice. However, it is regrettable—although perhaps only to be expected from someone who has described land owning as "exclusivity and inherited privilege"—that the right hon. Gentleman has this afternoon squandered the good will that those in the countryside have sought to bring to this issue.
When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to legislate? Given the importance that he attaches to these matters, will it be in the next Session? Given—as English Nature has pointed out—that the Government have at no stage during the consultation process defined either the need or demand for greater access to the countryside, how will the right hon. Gentleman measure the success or otherwise of the policy that he has announced today? He has explained that his statement applies to mountain, moor, heath, down and common land. Can he explain to the House when the mapping exercises will be completed and what work has already been done on definitions?
By what means does the right hon. Gentleman propose to assess the effects of increased access on biodiversity and fragile habitats, and thereby refute the claims of Friends of the Earth that he has focused almost

exclusively on the social implications of increased access? How strongly does he believe in consensus as a way forward? Will the statutory agencies be encouraged to use compulsion as an early option? Will the Government issue guidelines? What will be the cost to local authorities and statutory agencies of negotiating and managing access? What new money will the Government make available, given that it is precisely rural local authorities that have suffered most in Labour's local government finance settlement?
The right hon. Gentleman's statement refers only to access on foot. How strongly will the Government encourage use of the countryside by the general public, such as horse riders, cyclists, families, bird watchers and the disabled? What is in the statement for them? If compulsion becomes necessary, what compensation will there be for landowners and farmers to meet the costs of access and the loss of land values? What arrangements is the right hon. Gentleman making to protect owner liability? Will there be a new legal code to ensure that those using the land and those owning it are clear about their rights and responsibilities in terms of both public behaviour and the control of dogs—which was a thorny issue during the consultation process?
Who will be responsible for appointing the local access forums? What balance will the right hon. Gentleman seek to achieve within and among the different groups to be represented?
The right hon. Gentleman has today produced a solution that has the potential to satisfy no one. It will be cumbersome and bureaucratic; it will further divide town and countryside; and it represents a squandered opportunity.

Mr. Meacher: Nothing reveals more starkly the fact that the Conservative party is stuck in an 18th century time warp than their approach to the statutory right of access. The right hon. Lady's problem is that she cannot make up her mind whether to accept that the Labour Government, with a full manifesto commitment behind today's proposals, should be supported, or whether, as she said towards the end of her remarks, the proposals will satisfy no one. The contrary is true—they will satisfy the overwhelming majority of the electorate.
The Country Landowners Association's Gallup poll last year showed that 80 per cent. of people are in favour of greater access to the countryside. The Ramblers Association NOP poll last year demonstrated that 85 per cent. of people wanted a legal right of access over mountain, moorland, heath and down and registered common land. Once again, the Tory party is allying itself with the tiny, exclusive minority of 15 per cent. I have not at any time accused landowners of being exclusive or committed to the retention of privilege. It is the Conservative party of which I have said that in the past.
I have made it clear that we shall introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. The mapping exercise has to be carried out, and we shall tell the new Countryside Agency to get on with that as quickly as it can. On closure for wildlife, we shall fully protect wildlife, sites of special scientific interest and nature reserves. We have always made it clear that protection of wildlife and environmental crops is our priority, and that will not be overridden by public rights of access.
I have made it absolutely clear that we want minimum compulsion to be used. I favour the local access forums, which will be fully representative of all interests. The countryside agencies will issue guidelines. The policy is one not of compulsion but of maximising consensus.
The Government have made it perfectly clear that we shall make available new moneys to ensure that local authorities are able to meet the requirements of the legislation.
On horse riders and cyclists, the right hon. Lady needs to make up her mind whether she is in favour of people on foot having access before she decides whether people on a bicycle or a horse should have access.
On compensation, let me make it clear that the access provisions were devised to have regard to the needs of landowners as well as walkers, and independent research shows that landowners generally will not suffer costs significant enough to warrant compensation. The statutory right will allow agricultural activities, the development of land and the closure of land for good land management reasons to continue.
In answer to the right hon. Lady's final question about the local access forums, I can tell her that we shall certainly ask the Countryside Agency to advise us about the membership, geographical coverage and functions of those forums.
I hope that the right hon. Lady can find it in her heart at least to accept that the local access forums—on which her party will, perhaps, be significantly represented—can work towards resolving the question of access, which has poisoned relations between landowners and users during the past 50 years. We believe that our proposals can finally resolve that question.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government coming down in favour of a statutory approach is great news for walkers and all those who love the countryside? Does he accept, however, that there will be a few fears that the Government have gone for a very bureaucratic approach? Will he therefore assure us that access to the 4 million extra acres of land will be achieved quickly? Will he make a plea for co-operation between walkers and landowners, to ensure that that is carried out speedily, and that townspeople especially have a better understanding of the countryside as a result?

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes the important point that the provisions will engender greater knowledge and concern for the countryside among millions of people who have not previously had access to it. I am as keen as he is that this should not be a bureaucratic exercise. That is exactly why we are setting up local access forums. They will be able flexibly to take account of local circumstances, which vary dramatically. We have specifically not decided to resolve all these issues on the basis of a single statutory criterion. As to the time scale, I can only repeat that my wish and the Government's wish is to bring the provisions into operation as fast as we can. The main limitation will be the requirement for mapping because, especially for heathland and downland, some uncertainties must be resolved before the right can be exercised.

Mr.Matthew Taylor: The Minister has taken a big step from national rights to local

realities. On that basis, we welcome his statement and support the direction in which the Government are moving. However, there are some key difficulties, not least concerning how people will gain the information that allows them to make use of such access, given that there will be rights of closure and other restrictions.
Does the Minister expect to get the measure through at least before the next general election, a key date towards which perhaps he is working? Does he agree that safe and accessible land rights, as well as a legal right, are important, and that to achieve that will require funds? I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is negotiating reform of the common agricultural policy, is considering the release of extra funds to allow landowners and farmers to open up safe and accessible routes into the countryside, as well as simply burdening them with a legal right. Perhaps most important, given that the Minister is asking everybody else to open up their land, has he talked to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about the very large areas of land to which the Government restrict access?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman asks whether we shall have a Bill before the next election. He knows that the Government—all Governments—make decisions about the next round of legislation year by year. My Department and I will certainly be bidding for such a Bill as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman knows that, as of this moment, I cannot guarantee it, but I certainly hope and expect that we shall have a Bill before the next election.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point on the question of safe and accessible rights as well as legal rights. I am very keen that, under Agenda 2000 proposals and the development of agri-environment schemes, especially countryside stewardship, which is the most important, and countryside access and environmentally sensitive area schemes, there will be voluntary expansion beyond the statutory rights that I have announced. There are already something like 500 km of extra footpaths and about 14,000 hectares of open-area access on that basis—a small but valuable addition.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The statement is a lot better than many people expected. I feel kind of warm towards new Labour at the moment. We share a common objective a statutory right to roam—that is what the Minister has enunciated—over 4 million acres of open countryside. That is the shared objective. Where there are reservations, they must be about the means of delivery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned the bureaucratic solution of local access forums. How will the lines on the map be drawn? Who will be invited to the local access forums? How will disagreements be mediated within them?
What is the timetable? My support is conditional on this matter being resolved in the next year or two, not allowed to fester, as the Minister said, dragging on interminably. The people of this country want action, and they want it now.
My right hon. Friend talked about a suitable legislative opportunity. It may have escaped his notice that my Right to Roam Bill is coming up for Second Reading on 26 March, and it may well be that we should talk about it.

Mr. Meacher: We shall do more than talk about it; I am sure that we shall vigorously debate it on the date that


my hon. Friend mentioned. The Government and my hon. Friend share a common objective—that there should be a statutory right of access. However, we believe that Government legislation is needed to achieve our objectives, which go wider than those of my hon. Friend's Bill. The Government's is a package measure; it also includes full protection of wildlife, effective management of land and livestock, local access forums, improved rights of way, changes to occupier's liability and reasonable and balanced rights to temporary closure. That is a very comprehensive package, but I still believe that my hon. Friend and I can meet, and I am sure that we can achieve a large measure of agreement.
My hon. Friend mentioned timing. I do not want this matter to fester. I do not want the arrangements to be bureaucratic or time wasting. The only factor that prevents early or immediate implementation is the requirement for mapping. My wish is that that should be done as fast as possible, but my hon. Friend must recognise that there are limits to the speed at which it can be done properly, bearing in mind that rights of appeal may well be exercised.
Local access forums are not a bureaucratic insertion into the process. We believe that they enable us to maximise local flexible resolution of the specific problems that exist, given the very different landscapes and very different types of land use in different parts of the country. If we tried to resolve those problems on a single centralised basis, we would run into far more problems. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to accept that local access forums are the best way to achieve a pragmatic consensus and early implementation of the right.

Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister accept that the countryside is not a commodity? Does he further accept that the countryside is extremely fragile and, in places like the Yorkshire dales and the Three Peaks in my constituency, under immense pressure? Will he ensure that his legislation respects that and seeks to maintain the countryside for enjoyment, not to destroy it by having too many people? That is a real problem for those who understand the countryside.
Does the Minister understand that the abuse of green lanes by four-wheel drive vehicles is a serious problem which must be addressed? Will he ensure that his local forums, on which much will hinge, are genuinely local, and that local agents of national organisations will not do the negotiating?
Finally, I assume that this will be an English Bill, as it will come in a long time after devolution.

Mr. Meacher: Of course I realise that the countryside is fragile in many ways and in many locations. Local access forums would be expected to take that fragility into account. If there is too much pressure on particular points, agreement will need to be reached to find alternatives, but it will have to be demonstrated that there is a real need for people to move away from one particular part because of excessive pressures. The extension of a statutory right and the spreading of the load is precisely the way to ensure that there is less pressure on areas which hitherto may have taken excessive pressures.
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's reference to too many people. Once again, that is the exclusivity on which the Tory party so easily falls back. We live in crowded islands—there are 60 million of us in these islands, but it is not a matter of there being too many people. All of us have an entitlement. That is what the Labour party stands for and that is what we are implementing.
There is no access and there are no rights for four-wheel drive or other motorised vehicles. We are talking about access on foot for open-air recreation—for example, picnicking, bird watching or photography. We are not talking about access or rights for four-wheel drives. Those chosen for the local access forums will be local people and not simply representatives of national organisations. They will be people who know and love their local area.

Mr. Paul Marsden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I am especially pleased that we can look forward, before the introduction and implementation of a statutory right, to local access forums having their say. That will be critical. The process should be about consensus, co-operation and negotiation. I have confidence that the local access forums will succeed. I implore my right hon. Friend not to forget other users of the countryside. For example, do not forget about horse riders and cyclists. There are millions of users. I am aware that eight accidents occur every day that involve horse riders, but we need greater access.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is the time to question the Minister, not to make comments. Some of us are more experienced than others, but let us have brisk questions.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), like my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), has sought to make a positive contribution to this open debate. I hope that he will be pleased that the matters that he raised in his Bill on permanency of access, improved rights of way and changes to occupiers' liability have all been taken on board by the Government. We hope to secure these rights and changes in our legislation.
I repeat what my hon. Friend has said: this is a package for consensus and co-operation, within a statutory framework, which honours our manifesto commitment. That is why we are looking for co-operation. Of course we want to see improved access for horse riders and cyclists but I repeat that what I am announcing today is specifically for those who walk on foot and wish to enjoy open-air recreation. Horse riders and cyclists will have their day, but that will be separate from what I am announcing today.

Mr. James Paice: What benefit or enjoyment can be obtained from a right of access that cannot be obtained from a comprehensive network of footpaths?

Mr. Meacher: The problem with the comprehensive network of footpaths is that it is not as comprehensive as the hon. Gentleman makes it out to be. The latest survey, which was carried out in 1994, revealed that 74 per cent.


of ways were free from obstruction, which means that 26 per cent., more than 25,000 miles, are still subject to obstruction. The key point that the hon. Gentleman is not taking on board is that we are not talking about linear access. I am talking not about confining people to paths or ways but about giving them free right to roam across open country. We believe that open-area access is extremely important. Unless there are justifications for confining people to linear access, we continue to press for open-area access.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and particularly on his good judgment in appointing Pamela Warhurst as deputy chair of the Countryside Agency? The appointment will bring balance, and Pamela Warhurst will bring with her a wealth of experience.
Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing stronger penalties for people who take four-wheel drive vehicles into the countryside and churn up valuable land, with no regard for people who want access by walking into the countryside?

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about Pamela Warhurst. There is no question but that she has a great deal of experience in countryside recreation and leisure, and I have no doubt that she will make a magnificent contribution to the implementation of the access provisions.
I take note of what my hon. Friend says about four-wheel drives. There are many areas of the country where they are causing substantial disturbance and where there is a need for tighter regulation and larger penalties. I am looking into such matters carefully, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) knows from his correspondence with me.

Mr. Edward Garnier: By granting a statutory right of access, the Minister's statement will necessarily produce damaging effects on the rights of property. Under the European convention on human rights, and under the Government's Human Rights Act 1998, that cannot happen without compensation. What assessment have the Government made of the levels of compensation that will be required under the convention and under the Act, and what further assessment have the Government made of the levels of additional insurance that landowners will have to take out to cover visitors on to their land?

Mr. Meacher: On the question of crime, may I make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the right of access will cease for anyone who breaches any of the range of restrictions under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or who commits a criminal offence. Such a person will automatically lose any statutory right of access and ipso facto be subject to the civil law of trespass. [Interruption.] Let me add, as the hon. and learned Gentleman looks a little mystified, that robbers, thieves and other miscreants do not require a

statutory right of access in order to target the scenes of their crime. It may have escaped the hon. and learned Gentleman's notice that they will go there anyway.

Mr. Garnier: The Minister is not answering the question.

Mr. Meacher: If I did not understand the question, I am quite prepared, with your permission, Madam Speaker, to allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to clarify it.

Madam Speaker: I shall not let these exchanges run much longer, so I want brief questions. If the Minister has not understood the question, of course I must take it again.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. The new policy will affect the rights of property, but under the European convention on human rights and under the Human Rights Act 1998, which this Government passed, that cannot happen without compensation in lieu. My first question was what assessment the Government have made of the levels of compensation that will be required. Secondly, what assessment have they made of the levels of insurance that will have to be taken out by landowners in order to protect visitors to their land?

Mr. Meacher: I did understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's question and I was coming to that point. I have already made it clear that a statutory right is entirely consistent with other activities, such as agriculture and development, continuing. Our view is that a fair balance has been drawn between the interests of landowners and the general interest. In our view, there is no right to general compensation under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his historic statement. I presume that besides a soft voice, he carries a big stick with which to deal with any remnants of 18th century oligarchy. What new access does my right hon. Friend envisage there will be in Wales? Will he say a little more about Wales with its unrivalled scenery, to which the people of Wales want more access?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right to say that Wales probably has a higher proportion of beautiful landscape than any other part of the country. One third of the total open countryside in England and Wales, within the 4 million acres to which I referred, lies in Wales. The scope for the National Assembly for Wales to introduce arrangements that take account of particular Welsh circumstances will depend on provisions in the Bill. I have no doubt that the new Welsh Assembly will be interested in examining the application of the provisions. It will have the opportunity to do so, and we will take account of that when we draw up the Bill.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I have two brief questions for the Minister. Why have the Government not ensured that local government in Wales, for example, has the funds to keep existing footpaths open? Does he not realise that exempting extensively grazed land from the agricultural sector will thereby make


it open for such traipsing? That land is the delicate environment which needs to be protected and cannot stand an influx of people.

Mr. Meacher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening, but I made it clear that my Department and the Welsh Office will ensure that resources are available to local authorities to cover the costs of the new legislation. That will include the building of stiles, gates and signs and possibly some rangering services. We have made it clear that extra resources will be provided for those purposes.
In respect of grazed land, I dissociate myself from the hon. Gentleman's pejorative use of the word "traipsing". We are talking about a pastime that is probably more popular with more people in this country than any other and it would be appropriate to use more respectful terms such as "rambling" or "walking". I do not accept that rough-grazed land is inappropriate for rambling and, if there are particular cases where rambling is producing damage, I would expect the issue to be raised with the local access forum. Evidence would have to be produced that damage had been caused.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I welcome the Government's proposals, and I am sure that my local branch of the Ramblers Association does so as well, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the devil will be in the detail? In anticipation of the legislation, will his Department establish local access forums at once to discuss the problems that will arise in particular areas and try to make ready for when the legislation is passed? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that mapping, which can be carried out after the legislation is passed, is not used as an excuse to prevent its introduction? In view of his undertaking to protect wildlife and his restrictions on the use of dogs, will we see the end of deer hunting, hare coursing and fox hunting?

Mr. Meacher: I am concerned that local access forums should be set in place as quickly as possible. I have asked the Countryside Commission, which is soon to be replaced by the Countryside Agency, to draw up proposals in respect of the precise functions, membership and coverage of those forums and I shall certainly want to proceed with that as quickly as I can. I agree that mapping should not be used as an excuse for delay and I shall be keeping a careful eye on that to ensure that mapping is achieved as quickly as possible, although access provisions for different categories of land may come into effect at different times.
In respect of dogs, my hon. Friend was making a rather wider point. There are general problems relating to dogs and we will be drawing up guidelines, which will provide for an outright ban in local circumstances where that is appropriate.

Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister said in his statement that, at some point in the future, he may seek to extend the power of access to woodland. Does he propose to seek primary legislative power to give him a general right to designate access—not only to woodland, but to any other form of land—at his discretion?

Mr. Meacher: No, that is not the intention. I have asked what will be the Countryside Agency to draw up

proposals about the desirability and appropriateness of extending these access provisions to areas that were included in the 1949 Act—to cliff and foreshore, to river and canalside and to woodland. Depending, of course, on what the agency recommends, we would seek to go further, but not on the basis of secondary legislation.

Ms Joan Walley: I acknowledge the enormous amount of work done by my right hon. Friend, and warmly welcome the proposal for legislation on statutory rights of access. What extra funds, however, will be required in respect of footpaths and the wider aspects of the legislation? When he speaks to the new Countryside Agency and to local authorities, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that in Staffordshire, 189 applications regarding disputed rights of way are outstanding? At this rate, it will take 15 years to see them through. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that funds will be available?

Mr. Meacher: I have already tried to reassure the House that my Department and the Welsh Office will make resources available to cover the cost of the new legislation. I have said the same to local authorities. When that is still not sufficient, we think it reasonable to charge—where car parks, hides or guided trails are provided, for instance—but we do not think it reasonable to charge for the right of access in principle.
My hon. Friend mentioned the large number of disputed rights of way in her area. That is precisely what a statutory right of access is designed to prevent. It is because there is so much uncertainty, because there are no formal agreements and because so many of the alleged agreements are insecure that it is now necessary to introduce a statutory right, which I believe will clear up most of the difficulties.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister accept that all who love and know about the hills, the uplands and the wild places in this country will deeply regret and resent his statement? It would have been so much better if he had decided on a system of voluntary access.
For how long will the right hon. Gentleman allow, for example, the moors to be closed during the nesting season of ground-nesting birds, and for shooting at a later date?

Mr. Meacher: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to ally himself with the tiny minority who oppose a statutory right of access. As I have said, some 85 per cent. of those who responded to the statutory-voluntary question in our consultation exercise said that a voluntary approach was inadequate for the securing of access, and both the NOP and the Gallup polls showed similar figures.
I am as fascinated and mesmerised as the hon. Gentleman by the beauty, tranquillity and amazing attractiveness of our wonderful open spaces. That is exactly why it is so important to make them accessible to all our people, not just to the tiny number who happen to own thousands of acres of rolling hillside.
Of course I am concerned about ground-nesting birds. That is precisely the sort of issue that will lead to temporary and, if need be, permanent restrictions. I will not allow the rights of wildlife—living creatures that inhabit our country along with human beings—to be


overridden simply for purposes of access, but that is no reason for us not to have a general-strategy right of access.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As the only London Member who is trying to question my right hon. Friend, and also the Member representing the most densely populated urban constituency in the country, I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on today's statement and on their aspirations for a right of access. People in urban areas want such access desperately. They love the countryside just as much as Conservative Members, who pretend that loving it means hunting and killing animals in it.
My right hon. Friend said that there might be restricted access on account of defence purposes and defence needs. What discussions has he had with the Ministry of Defence, and what hopes has he that the vast acres of MOD-held land will be thrown open for the public to enjoy, just as we hope other land will be?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly right about the desire of many urban dwellers, not only in London, but in many large cities, to have access to open countryside, probably near to where they live but further out if necessary. As I have said, that will bring tremendous benefits.
I am glad that the Ministry of Defence has already begun to open significant portions of its estate for rambling. We have begun discussions with the Ministry on how much further that can be taken. My belief is that it is possible to take it considerably further, so long as we can absolutely guarantee the safety of people who ramble or wander over MOD land.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will hill farmers be able to close upland commons and hills during the lambing season? Will gamekeepers be able to close moors during the bird-rearing season? If so, who will advise the public that access is to be denied to them? Who will police the provisions? Will the countryside be covered with a forest of notices as a result?

Mr. Meacher: I would expect temporary and limited closures, probably in a wide area of open countryside, during the lambing season and the breeding season, particularly between April and June. We have to work further on the information. I accept that the question of ensuring that information gets to people who wish to use the countryside is important. It will certainly include public notices, newspapers, local radio and, perhaps in the modern age, the website.

Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill

Clause 3

INFORMATION CONTAINED IN CERTIFICATES

Lords amendment: In page 3, line 31, after ("out") insert ("in").

Ordered, That the Lords amendment be now considered.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Lords amendment agreed to.

Women

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): Today is the 73rd international women's day—a day to mark what women do, want and achieve. In Europe, the Commission and Parliament are celebrating international women's day. Commissioner Gradin is launching a campaign to heighten public awareness about violence towards women.
Throughout the world, international women's day is being celebrated. Baroness Jay, the Minister for Women, is today in New York to attend the United Nations Commission for the Status of Women. She will take part in a debate on violence against women and join Commissioner Gradin via a video link.
What women want is a Government whose actions and priorities reflect their lives. For too many women, the political process is remote and irrelevant. That is why it is doubly important that women see evidence that the Government listen, act on what they hear and never break the link with women and families. The Government must respect the boundary between public policy and private lives, but understand that public policy can make the responsibilities of private life so much easier to handle. Governments do not bring up children; families do. Governments are able, however, to provide the framework of hope and opportunity in which families are given the very best chance of success—success for the part-time worker who is the full-time mother, for the full-time mother who is the part-time carer, and for the full-time mother.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge the valuable work done by local play groups? What would she say to the Bowley Park play group in Lichfield which, because of the introduction of the minimum wage, faces the difficult choice of either packing up altogether or increasing prices considerably to the young mothers who are sending their toddlers to the play group?

Ms Jowell: I should first note that about 20 per cent. of Conservative Members are in the Chamber for the debate, and that about 20 per cent. of them has just spoken. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Department for Education and Employment is examining ways in which to span the interim period until the working families tax credit takes effect.
The Government, in making things better for women, are making things better for everyone: better for women is better for all. The issues of concern to women are the issues of concern to everyone: health, education, crime, jobs and the economy. Women benefit when we spend £21 billion to improve our hospitals, spend £19 billion extra to improve our schools, take action to cut youth unemployment by 55 per cent. and enable jobs overall to grow by 400,000. Those actions benefit women, because they benefit everyone.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am sorry to divert the right hon. Lady from the big subjects, but I should


like to pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). If I understood him correctly—I am fairly certain that I did—he said that staff at the pre-school play group he mentioned were currently paid less than £3.60.

Mr. Fabricant: indicated assent.

Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend acknowledges that that is correct. Therefore, given the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend's question, is she saying that the working families tax credit is a way of supplementing income of less than £3.60? She seemed to be saying that. I should be grateful if she will clarify the matter.

Ms Jowell: I should make three points. First, I reiterate that the Department for Education and Employment is closely examining the circumstances in which play groups may find it difficult to manage with the introduction of the minimum wage. Secondly, I make it clear that the working families tax credit will be a benefit available to couples earning up to £23,000 annually. Thirdly, the important point—which is always ignored by Opposition Members—is that the minimum wage, which the Government are introducing, will free from poverty pay about 1.3 million women in the United Kingdom. We are proud of that.
I shall outline the changes that are being made in women's lives, beginning with children. Recent opinion polls have made it clear that more than one third of women think that education is the most important issue facing Britain today. The Government have pledged—in addition to the extra £2.4 billion aimed at raising school standards—£19 billion to education in the next three years. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last week, by 2002, and probably earlier, class sizes for children under seven will be cut to no more than 30. Already, more than 100,000 children are in smaller infant classes. Those children will be able to learn better because they are in smaller classes.
Since September 1998, every four-year-old in England has had access to free good-quality, part-time, preschool education. Moreover, we have allocated almost £400 million more to increase the proportion of three-year-olds receiving free pre-school education—from one in three to almost two thirds—by January 2002.

Mrs. Theresa May: The Minister is lauding the Government's action on nursery education. Does she accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), that as a result of the Government's policy on the minimum wage, many pre-schools may have to close? That will reduce opportunities for women and take away the chance of early years education for many children. It is hardly an example of the joined-up government that the Government keep saying that they are so proud of.

Ms Jowell: Once again, I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are determined to ensure stability in the provision for very young children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is making arrangements on that.
The aim of our sure start programme is to fill the gaps in local services for children from birth to age four, and to promote opportunity in areas of disadvantage. We recognise that we can improve the health of new babies by improving the health of mothers during pregnancy. Some 250 programmes will be funded by the end of this Parliament. We have invested £452 million in England alone and a total of £540 million will be invested nationwide over the next three years. We are not prepared to allow children's opportunities to be set on the day that they are born. Sure start is about creating opportunities for the poorest families by offering opportunities for all. In a few weeks, we shall see the biggest ever increase in child benefit. That is real delivery, real action and real progress.
Our second area of concern in the life cycle of women is teenage girls. By adolescence, the issues that face girls and boys can be very different. The effects of the choices that girls face during their teens can last for the rest of their lives. The issues that young women face today are significantly different from those of a generation ago. Britain has the highest rate of teenage motherhood in western Europe. By the age of 15, one in three young women smoke regularly, compared with one in four boys. The number of young women drinking more than 14 units of alcohol a week, which is more than is good for them, has increased over the past 10 years.

Mrs. Lait: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jowell: I should like to make some progress first, but I am prepared to take interventions later.
Girls tend to outperform boys throughout their school years, but many lose confidence and self-esteem in their teenage years. We need changing actions and new ways of thinking to deal with new difficulties and new problems. That means looking across Government for solutions. We must take note of the evidence that the education of mothers is the most important predictor of the educational achievement of their daughters.
The social exclusion unit is studying teenage pregnancies. It has undertaken the largest ever consultation exercise and will report its findings shortly. The women's unit is looking at what happens to girls during their teenage years that, too often, prevents them from meeting earlier aspirations and achievements. It is looking at the extent of gender stereotyping, which drives girls into particular careers. It is also studying the growing concern about the risk behaviour that teenage girls are increasingly engaging in—behaviour that may compromise their health for the rest of their lives.
No one story can be told about the lives of mothers in Britain today, because women's lives are changing faster than ever before. Some 25 years ago, only one in four mothers with children under five were in paid employment. Now the figure is nearly half. Nearly eight out of 10 of all mothers are in paid work. Overwhelmingly, mothers want to work because work brings a sense of value, income and independence. Nearly seven out of 10 women—the same proportion as men— say that they would rather work, even if they could afford not to. However, many would prefer to work for shorter hours.
When children are young and dependent, there must be a choice—a real choice. The Government have made sure that support is there, whichever course the mother


chooses. The child care tax credit will fund the first £70 of child care costs for eligible mothers, and £105 for two or more children. The working families tax credit will make it easier for couples on low incomes to cope if one parent—invariably the mother—decides to stay at home when the children are very small. The choice no longer lies between underwork and overwork. Governments can help women to balance their lives, but these are private choices. They can be choices because we have listened to women.
The Government have taken an important step in improving the lot of families, with the biggest-ever increase in child benefit coming up. That will be in addition to the increase for every family with children on income support. Practical action by the Government will transform the lives of women in paid work.
From April, the national minimum wage will take effect. It will tackle exploitation and ensure greater fairness in the workplace. Nearly 2 million workers will benefit from the minimum wage, around two thirds of whom are women—1.3 million women. The working families tax credit—together with the minimum wage— will guarantee low-paid families with a full-time worker a minimum income of £190 a week, with no tax to pay on incomes below £220.
There is still a huge disparity between women's and men's incomes; the earnings gap is still there, and still wide. When men enter employment, their earnings, on average, tend to rise steadily to a peak, suggesting that their earnings reflect their increasing skills and experience—as well as the jobs that they enter. Women's earnings reach only a much lower point, and then gradually taper away.
We will make clear just how stark the gap is when we publish a new document on the gender gap in the pay packet shortly. Further work will provide us with valuable tools to build on existing measures, such as the national minimum wage, to identify correctly the nature and extent of the pay gap, to enable women to better balance taking paid work with family commitments, and to improve women's incomes in retirement.
The most important issue for women at work in terms of being able to balance the responsibilities of home and work is family-friendly employment. The Employment Relations Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, makes a good start at levelling off the unequal playing field by extending maternity leave to 18 weeks, creating a right to parental leave and creating a right to time off to deal with an emergency in the family.
As they grow older, many women become carers; some 60 per cent. of our 6 million carers are women. It is a tough and vital role—a role that has been disgracefully ignored for too many years in this country. Our national carers strategy, published some weeks ago, has three key elements. The strategy will provide information for carers, speaking to the carer who says, "The problem is not just that I do not know what I am entitled to, but that I do not know what question to ask to find out what I am entitled to."
The strategy will speak to carers' need for greater and more flexible support. It will also provide care for carers. Evidence shows clearly that, too often, elderly people are admitted to residential care not because their own health fails, but because the health of their carer has failed.
We have listened to carers and acted on what we have heard, providing £140 million over the next three years to ensure that carers get the break that they need. We are also holding consultations on proposals that time spent caring will entitle carers to a second pension: a pension that by 2050—albeit that is some way off—will be worth up to £50 a week in today's terms, payable on top of the basic state retirement pension.
We are also dealing with the issues that affect older people; we should celebrate older people. Longer life expectancy means that the majority of older people are women, but longer life, sadly, does not necessarily mean longer, healthier life. The baby girl born today can expect to live until she is 80, but she can expect only 61 of those years to be free from any chronic illness or life-limiting disability. That is why one of our top priorities for improving people's health is to extend the number of years for which they enjoy fit, active and healthy life.
I was reminded of the consequences of failing to do that by a cartoon that I saw recently, showing two old ladies in the bleak austerity of a home for the elderly. They were wrapped in blankets and there was absolutely no sign of pleasure around them. One was saying to the other, "Just imagine, Mavis. I gave up smoking for this." The challenge is huge. Our better government for older people programme will have an impact on several fronts: for example, by improving the services that older people use and tackling in practical ways the issues of concern to older people.
We already know that pensions are a key concern for older people. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has introduced the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, which contains important proposals for helping women in retirement. For the first time, divorcing women will be able to obtain a share of their former husband's pension rights, recognising the contribution that they have made to the financial well-being of the family. The new stakeholder pensions will help people who, until now, have been unable to make pensions provision through an occupational scheme or personal pension.
There are other issues of concern to women: tough issues such as violence against women. Violence, and the fear of violence, can haunt women throughout their live: year in, year out, thousands of children witness cruelty and violence to their mothers; one in four women experience domestic violence at some time in their lives; every week, two women die as a result of violence in the home; and 46 per cent. of women over 60 hardly ever go out at night, because they feel unsafe.
Those are stark and unpalatable facts. We cannot achieve a fair and equal society as long as women are not safe in their own homes—for too many women, home is the most dangerous place—and as long as women are afraid to go out at night or cannot raise their children in safety. That is why tackling crime is a top priority for the Government.
My noble Friend the Minister for Women and I will publish later in the spring a document setting out good practice in protecting women from all forms of violence, with local initiatives to spur local action to make women safer. My noble Friend and I are travelling the country as part of a process called "Listening to Women". From Bristol to Birmingham and from Newcastle to Norwich,


in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland, we are ensuring that action by this Government is rooted in the real lives of real women.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I wish to raise with my right hon. Friend a tough issue that I have raised with her several times before. I am sure that she will agree that the most important development in many women's lives is having a child. She knows of my constituent who has been refused in vitro fertilisation treatment by the health authority because her husband has a child by a previous marriage. That decision is an outrage and an intrusion on my constituent's civil rights. In this day and age, it is intolerable that a health authority feels it has the right to act in that way under a Labour Government, whose Ministers do not agree with it. Does my right hon. Friend have any news about that issue, because my constituent's husband came to my surgery in Workington on Saturday and told me that his wife was very distressed? Something must be done, because the situation is intolerable.

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the sheer diligence and commitment that he has shown to his constituent who faces a dreadfully distressing situation, in which I have taken a close personal interest. As he will know, we are considering several aspects of our policy on infertility. We are determined to get rid of what is no more than a geographical lottery and to ensure that treatment for infertility is based on the best available evidence. We are determined to ensure consistency, guided by the best clinical evidence, in the criteria used by health authorities to determine eligibility for fertility treatment. We are also determined that when couples are first referred for fertility treatment, they are given a proper assessment of the likelihood that it will be successful. It is heartbreaking for couples to persevere with fertility treatment, for reasons that every woman in the House will understand, when the clinical likelihood of a pregnancy is remote. I will remain closely in touch with my hon. Friend about the matter, and I am happy to meet him and his constituent to discuss the action that the Government are taking to create greater fairness in access to treatment for infertility.
Earlier today, I spoke to women representing more than 100 non-governmental organisations. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them and to thank them for their tireless efforts on behalf of thousands of women. My right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for women's issues, has responded on behalf of the Government this afternoon to a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. The Scottish Parliament will be well placed to advance the interests of Scottish women.
Since our election, the Government have been committed to listening to, and acting on what we hear from, women. However, women still feel that their voices are not heard. They still feel under-represented. Let us look at the House of Commons. In the previous Parliament, there were more Members called John than there were women Members. In the current Parliament, we have done much better on my side of the House.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I welcome the contemplated tour to listen to women, but I encourage my

right hon. Friend to consider including Liverpool in her round of visits. She may know that that great city is the founding home of the women's refuge movement and the citizens advice bureau. A great collective of people in Liverpool—men and women—have a great vested interest in promoting women.
I should like to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention a sad fact that afflicts many women in my profession of engineering. Recently, the Women's Engineering Society has undergone a survey of the professional women who are its members. We wanted to know what happened to women throughout their careers. It is a sad fact that 30 per cent. of women aged between 30 and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady must take her seat while I am on my feet. The earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was a trifle too long, but the current one is becoming a speech. The hon. Lady should put her question briefly and then resume her seat.

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: What is being done to improve the participation in work of women with a science and engineering background, given that they have to take career breaks to manage their children and for caring duties?

Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend's important question goes to the heart of the issues that we are tackling for women in relation to the importance of family-friendly employment that recognises the importance of flexibility and the opportunity to take time off, particularly when children are small. A second question, which will be picked up by the teenage girls project, is why so few women go into careers such as science and engineering. We want more girls to do so.
In the current Parliament, the Government are proud to have achieved a parliamentary Labour party in which 25 per cent. of hon. Members are women. There are 101 women out of 421 Members.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady accept that Labour broke European Union law by introducing women-only shortlists? Women must reach the House on merit. Equal opportunities are for men and women. Party lists exclusively composed of women broke the rules.

Ms Jowell: That is a tired old argument. Let me make it absolutely clear that the industrial tribunal that considered one case decided that all-women shortlists might be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. No definitive judgment was made, but we decided before the general election not to continue to pursue that course.
The encouraging point is that even after our decision, the glass ceiling had been broken. Many women were selected from mixed lists in what had been safe seats. We are proud of the level of representation of women that we have achieved. I do not wish to intrude into the private grief of the Opposition on that matter, but The Sunday Times yesterday blew the gaff on what goes on in the Conservative party. Before the Opposition raises concerns about Labour, they should perhaps put their own house in order.
A quarter of the Labour parliamentary party are women. However, we do not accept that that is enough, and we will continue to build a Parliament that really reflects the balance between men and women throughout the country. We must do much to achieve that.

Ms Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that representation is not only an issue in this Parliament, and that in the Northern Ireland Assembly, for example, we need to ensure that there is much wider representation of women? Will she join me in congratulating women throughout the community in Northern Ireland on their work in conflict resolution, especially the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, whose members deserve our highest praise for their work towards reconciliation and peace in Northern Ireland?

Ms Jowell: I am delighted to endorse my hon. Friend's remark. I would add that we have certainly put our effort where our mouth is on ensuring equality and gender balance in both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
We need to maintain the drive across Government. We have appointed a Minister for Women at Cabinet level; and we have a Cabinet Committee on women, whose members act as ambassadors for women in their own Departments of State, driving through change. We have had remarkable success: £300 million has been allocated to child care and an extra £30 million to breast, lung and colorectal cancer services, both of which sums will be supplemented by significant lottery funding channelled through the new opportunities fund initiatives on child care, and on cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care. In addition, a further £875 million has been allocated to child benefit. The women's unit, newly set up in the Cabinet Office, acts as a task force to add value and join up the effort across Whitehall.

Yvette Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that women benefited five times as much as men from the previous Budget—which was hailed by the Opposition as being sexist—because women are far more likely to look after children and to live in poverty? Will she join me in calling on our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to build on that work to support women and children in poverty in tomorrow's Budget?

Ms Jowell: I shall certainly join my hon. Friend in calling for that. By this time tomorrow, we should know to what extent my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done what he has said he hopes to do, which is to deliver a Budget for women and families.

Jackie Ballard: To follow up on that point, will the right hon. Lady also urge the Chancellor to lift the personal allowance by a considerable amount, which would take millions of low-paid women out of taxation altogether?

Ms Jowell: I am sure that many such proposals have been put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but we shall have to contain our impatience and wait for his Budget speech tomorrow.
We need to increase women's involvement in public life and decision making more generally. We are committed to 50 per cent. representation of women in

public appointments, and we have already made important progress by ensuring that nearly half of all national health service trust and health authority chairs and chief executives are women.

Mr. Fabricant: I understand the right hon. Lady's motivation, which is laudable, for saying that 50 per cent. of health trusts and various other committees should be made up of women, but will she give an undertaking to the House that women will be chosen according to merit, and not merely because they fill a quota?

Ms Jowell: Any such suggestion would be deeply offensive to the excellent women who have been appointed to trusts and health authorities throughout the country. We are lucky to have their services, which will help us to deliver a modern national health service to the people of this country.
We have also delivered stronger simple guidelines to Whitehall policy makers, in which we set out clearly how we expect them to assess the impact of their policies on women, ethnic minority groups, people with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups, to ensure that Departments are responsive and act with sensitivity. We need to track our action on our commitment to equality across society.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend see it as a testament to the Government's record on putting policies into practice that the Treasury, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Foreign Office are all represented on the Treasury Bench, but that only seven Members are here to represent all the Opposition parties in a debate on issues that affect 52 per cent. of the population?

Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Department for International Development is also represented on the Front Bench.
We must look not just at policy making, but at all Government processes—for example, service delivery— and ensure that we understand the differing impact on men and women. A set of proposals will be developed and printed in the "Modernising Government" White Paper, which will be published shortly by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
For many years, the Women's National Commission has given 50 of the United Kingdom's largest women's organisations a direct voice to Government. I am delighted to report that we have extended the commission's remit by scrapping the limit of 50 member organisations and inviting all women's organisations to join the umbrella group. That is important as the group is a formal channel of communication between Government and women up and down the country. We want to ensure that we talk to all women—women from grassroots groups, community groups, tenants associations and other bodies in which many women are active—who, until now, have been excluded from that process.
This is a programme for women. It is a programme of listening, of action and of delivery with women for women. It is about not just what Government can do for women but what women, working with Government and


in their communities, can achieve for themselves and their families. It is about delivering on the key issues that count for women—for example, health, education, crime and jobs. It is about making women's voices heard and supporting women in delivering on their responsibilities to their families, at work and in their communities.
That is what the Government are doing: recognising that the personal can be made possible by the political. We are delivering deeds not words—as the suffragettes demanded—and making things better: better for women and better for all.

Mrs.Theresa May: I welcome this opportunity to debate the Government's record on delivering for women—a debate that is made all the more important by Labour's emphasis on its approach to women's issues both before and during the last election. I also welcome the Minister with responsibility for women's issues to the Dispatch Box for this debate. I believe that I am correct in saying that this is the first debate on women's issues that the right hon. Lady has opened in the House since her appointment last July. Furthermore, in more than seven months in the job, the Minister has answered only one oral question relating to women—and that was about a health issue. That is hardly an example of placing women's issues firmly at the centre of Government, as the then Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), promised in June 1997.

Dr. Lynda Clark: Does the hon. Lady accept that questions must be asked before they can be answered? Therefore, I assume that Opposition Members did not ask the Minister any oral questions on that topic.

Mrs. May: I remind the hon. and learned Lady that it is the Government who have made much of the fact that there are so many female Labour Members of Parliament who are very interested in women's issues. How much interest did Labour Members show in women's issues? How many questions did they ask of the Minister with responsibility for women's issues? Sadly, there were none. I wonder how many questions on that topic the hon. and learned Lady has tabled for the Minister.

Ms Jowell: If the hon. Lady looks at any Order Paper, she will see a long list of questions specifically about matters that concern women. I have made it very clear that we believe women's issues should not be locked in some Whitehall backwater but should be part of the mainstream of Government. Every single Minister is concerned about the position of women and about improving that position and delivering for women.

Mrs. May: I am somewhat surprised by the Minister's intervention because it appears that she now agrees with the Conservative party about the importance of mainstreaming, which was certainly not the impression given by the Labour party prior to the election.
What is noticeable about the issue of oral questions is that when her colleagues, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon.
Member for Deptford, were responsible for women's issues, they were asked a number of questions specifically relating to women's unit matters. Those questions seem to have dried up since the present Minister for Women came to her position.

Helen Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

LornaFitzsimons: rose—

Mrs. May: A surfeit of hon. Members want me to give way. I give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).

Helen Jackson: The hon. Lady referred to the previous Parliament. I remember that at that time, the Minister with responsibility for women was the Secretary of State for Employment, David Hunt, followed by Michael Portillo, and it fell to my hon. Friends to engineer any debate on women's issues during women's week. There was not even a glimmer of a suggestion from those Ministers that they wanted to discuss in the Chamber issues of great importance for women in this House.

Mrs. May: Not all my ministerial colleagues in the previous Government who took responsibility for women's issues were men.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr.GeorgeFoulkes): They were men.

Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman says that they were men. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) is not a man and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) is not a man. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make sedentary interventions, he should get his facts right beforehand.
The Minister, in opening the debate, referred several times to the Government's programme of action and delivery. She spoke of "deeds, not words" and claimed that the Government were listening to and acting for women. Sadly, the opposite is true. Although the Labour party promised much for women before the last election, it has failed to deliver. Its record owes more to gloss than substance, and this is yet another case of Labour's actions failing to live up to its rhetoric.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out a number of areas in which she claimed that women's quality of life and role in society had improved. She gave the examples of the number of women in higher education and in the work force. I remind the Minister that those are successes of the previous Conservative Government, who, through flexible labour markets and a healthy economy, ensured that women were able to play a fuller part in the workplace than had previously been the case. The pay differentials between men and women were significantly reduced under the previous Conservative Government, and I am sorry to hear that the pay differential went up last year under new Labour.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. May: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) and then I will make progress.

MsHazel Blears: Does the hon. Lady believe that the 1.3 million women who will be helped by the first national minimum wage should not receive that wage and should continue to work in a flexible labour market for poverty pay?

Mrs. May: I shall comment on the impact of the minimum wage later in my speech, so perhaps the hon. Lady would like to listen to my remarks. As she heard from the intervention on the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), problems associated with the minimum wage are affecting organisations and employers throughout the country. Pre-school playgroups will affect women in two ways because people employed in pre-schools are predominantly women and women are benefiting from the opportunity for their children to attend those pre-schools. The hon. Lady should not welcome the news that pre-schools may have to close because of the impact of the minimum wage.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No, I have said that I want to make some progress. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities to allow interventions later, which I shall take.
Prior to the election, Labour promised a Minister for Women with full Cabinet status. Many assumed that that meant a Cabinet Minister with responsibility just for women; it certainly seemed to be a promise for a Minister for whom women would be their sole concern. As the Labour party said in "New Labour for Women",The minister for women will ensure that women's interests are taken into account in all policy making, having power to scrutinise all major legislation to examine its impact on women.
We even had the somewhat unedifying sight of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) telling women that they would get more sex under Labour. What happened in reality? After the election, responsibility for women was given to the then Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham, who is in her place—Cabinet responsibility for women, but hardly sole responsibility for women.
After much to-ing and fro-ing, the Prime Minister appointed a separate junior Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Deptford, who is also in her place. It appeared that the Prime Minister had recognised the importance of the job. But wait—he had left it so late that there was not enough money to pay any other Minister a full ministerial salary, so the Minister for Women was unpaid. What message did that send about how the Government viewed the importance of women and issues of importance to them? More significantly, what message did it send to women who are still fighting for equal pay?
After a year in which much continued to be promised to women, but during which the Secretary of State's main claim to fame on women's issues was cutting the lone-parent benefit premium, the two Ministers for Women were sacked. What is in their place? Cabinet responsibility for women has moved to the House of Lords. We all know what the Government think of the House of Lords. What does that say about the importance of women in their policy agenda?
The Minister for Public Health now responds to debates on women's issues in this House. Once again, responsibility for women's issues is not a Minister's sole responsibility, as many felt Labour had promised prior to the election, but merely one of the areas in a Minister's portfolio. Indeed, the list of responsibilities of the Minister for Public Health numbers 32. Where do women's issues come on that list? Do they come first, second or, perhaps, third? No, women's issues rank 32nd—bottom of the list.
In November, the Ministers for Women attempted to re-launch the women's unit. In their glossy brochure, "Delivering for women: Progress so far", they listed 18 measures to aid women. Of those 18, there was one strategy, one sub-committee, one initiative, one unit which was not exclusively for women, a new deal which is not working, a minimum wage which will cost jobs, and 12 promises of things to come. That is not about delivering for women; that is still about promising for women. That is not about action rather than words; that is about words and words and no action.
Let us look in a little more detail at the Government's policy actions for women, as they describe them. Once again, they pay lip service to women. Plenty of press releases claim to deliver for women, but actions speak louder than words. The Government have so far failed to deliver across so many areas of policy—be it the scheme to get lone parents back to work, which has been an expensive failure, plans to cut widows' benefit, or centralised employment policies, which, far from being family friendly, can only destroy jobs. In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister has attacked women who drive their children to school, and there has been a refusal to act on genetically modified crops and food.

Mr. Foulkes: Oh no.

Mrs. May: It is an issue of great importance to women.

Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Lady is so concerned about delivering for women, why will she not withdraw her opposition to the working families tax credit, which will make 700,000 women better off, and abandon her alternative proposal to introduce a tax hike for those 700,000 women?

Mrs. May: I shall talk about the working families tax credit later. Far from delivering for women, that tax credit may put many families in a worse position in terms of wallet versus purse.
The Under-Secretary of State for Internationa] Development made a comment from a sedentary position when I mentioned genetically modified crops and food. He may say "Oh, no" in that tone, but food safety issues strongly influence women when they decide what to feed their families, and beef—

Mr. Foulkes: Beef on the bone.

Mrs. May: Beef not on the bone—which was the result of the Government's decision, and their failure to allow women to decide for themselves what to feed their own families.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does the hon. Lady accept Labour Members' incredulity at being lectured on the importance of food safety by representatives of a party that presided over the biggest disasters in food health and food safety that any Government in living memory have presided over?

Mrs. May: That intervention does not deserve a response.
One message is clear: the Government have not listened to women, and their priorities show more about their own priorities than about women's priorities.
I shall now discuss several specific issues. I shall not touch on all those that the Minister touched on, but I know that my hon. Friends who will be aiming to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later in the debate will raise other issues.
Let us consider welfare issues. Labour came to power promising to cut the welfare budget by cutting the cost of economic and social failure. Labour adopted as a key policy the welfare-to-work campaign, and within that the aim of returning lone parents to the work force. The Government therefore introduced the new deal for lone parents as part of that welfare-to-work campaign.
The pilot scheme was a dismal failure. Less than a quarter of those lone parents who were invited to participate had an interview. Of those, nearly a quarter did not participate in the scheme and, overall, only 5 per cent. of those invited to participate got a job. We were told that things would get better when the scheme was extended nationwide. The Government are very good at promising that things will get better, but they are not good at delivering better things and better results.
In questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security earlier, it was made absolutely clear that the new deal for lone parents has an overall success rate, not of 5 per cent., as in the pilot scheme—which we were told would get better—but of only 3.8 per cent.
Of course, we welcome anyone finding a job and getting back into the workplace when they want to, but of 163,000 lone parents invited to participate in the new deal so far, only 6,000 have jobs. The scheme has cost £200 million, so each job has cost about £15,000—and it is not even clear that the people who have got jobs under the scheme would not have got them anyway. In each year between 1995 and 1997, about 40,000 lone parents found work—under a Conservative Government. Two years into the Labour Government's new deal for lone parents, only 6,000 have found jobs under the new deal. The new deal is proving to be an expensive failure—failure for Government and failure for women.

Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Lady visit my local jobcentre, in Alfreton, where the new deal for lone parents has now been rolled out, and where I talked, a couple of weeks ago, to the lone parent adviser? In response to the initial letters that she sent out, 30 people came to a meeting, and she has now obtained jobs for 17 of those lone parents.

Mrs. May: I am interested in the experience that the hon. Lady has set out. I note that she did not say how many letters were sent to people.

Judy Mallaber: Sixty

Mrs. May: Sixty letters, and half of those who were sent a letter came to a meeting and now 17 have jobs. Overall, of 163,000 people who have been invited—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Pathetic.

Mrs. May: What is pathetic is the result that the Government are getting from their new deal for lone parents. It is proving to be an expensive failure. It is failing to deliver for women and failing for the Government.
The problems for women in the area of welfare benefits do not end there. The working families tax credit was lauded by the Government as the answer to a working woman's problems. It is also expensive but, more significantly, it will fail to deliver the freedom that women want to choose what is right for them and their families. It will bring more families into the welfare net and hence into the dependency culture. It will provide benefit for families earning as much as £38,000 and it will cost £1.5 billion per annum.
The WFTC will be paid through employers.

Mrs. Lait: I warn my hon. Friend against accepting the Government's estimate of £1.5 billion as the cost of the working families tax credit. That estimate is based on the assumption that no one changes his or her form of child care. If there are large sums available for child care tax credit and people register as child minders, the entire equation changes. The cost could increase to £15 billion if everyone eligible under the WFTC opted for a child minder. If only half of them did so, the cost would be £7 billion.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the figures so clearly. She has brought more proof about how expensive the WFTC will be. It is interesting that it was up to my hon. Friend to introduce the figures of £15 billion and £7 billion. Those figures are not coming through from the Government. The Government do not want us to know how much the WFTC will cost.
There are other aspects of the WFTC that cause concern. It will be paid through employers, which means that they will have to know their employees' personal circumstances. There is real concern that the scheme will increase the stigma that is attached to receiving benefit. The point has been raised by independent commentators. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:
As employers and potentially work colleagues would observe the WFTC, it might increase the stigma associated with receiving transfer payments and so decrease take up.
Decreased take-up would mean fewer families benefiting than those now doing so under the family credit regime.
We also have the ridiculous situation that the Government's new arrangements for child care may make it more financially advantageous for a woman to pay a neighbour to look after her children and go out to work herself rather than stay at home and look after them.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: Not at this moment. I shall make some progress.
The Government's new arrangements are an attack on the many informal arrangements that are made by women to ensure that their children are looked after while they go to work. At my surgery the other day, I saw a constituent who helps her daughter and son-in-law by looking after their young children for part of the week. She told me, "With this new benefit system, I'm going to have to register as a child minder to look after my own grandchildren." Where will women stand when they are no longer free to make the arrangements that they want for their children to be looked after, when they will have to comply with the Government's set regulations?
The WFTC makes one very significant change for women, about which we have heard little from Labour Members.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way a second time. Does she understand that there is some confusion, certainly among Labour Members, about the line that the Conservative party is taking? Given that the Conservative party talks so much about choice, surely the hon. Lady accepts that the increase of £17 a week that families in receipt of family credit will receive as a result of the introduction of the working families tax credit will give them choice. At present they have no choice but to work longer hours for poverty pay. They will have the chance to stay at home and spend more time with their children. The WFTC will also give women the choice to send their children to child care, an economic choice that they have not had previously. Therefore, we are empowering women to make real choices when under the previous Government there was no choice.

Mrs. May: Of course we are in favour of women being able to make choices. As I have shown, however, the choices available to women may well be reduced rather than increased because of the way in which the WFTC will operate.
The WFTC makes one significant change about which, as I have said, we have heard little from Labour Members. Family credit, which it replaces, was paid predominantly to women. It was introduced by the Conservative Government to help people get back into work, and at the time the Labour party opposed it. As I have said, it has been paid mainly to the mother as a benefit. It will be replaced by the WFTC, which will be paid through the employer. As I said earlier, this will mean that the employer will need to know all the employee's financial circumstances, and the benefit will be paid through the wage packet. That means that the money will predominantly be paid to fathers, particularly in low income families.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No, not at this stage.
In its research paper last year, "Purse or Wallet? Gender Inequalities and Income Distribution within Families on Benefit", the Policy Studies Institute showed that when money is paid to the father, it is less likely to be spent on child care. New Labour said that it would help mothers to balance work and home, but the working families tax credit will take an estimated £900 million away from women and children.
How much thought for women and their child care needs was there when the Government signed up to the working time directive? Suddenly, they have realised that it might not be such a good idea to include au pairs in the scope of the legislation, and we see them backtracking on that point. If the women's unit and women's Ministers had had their eye on the ball, the problem would never have arisen.
That is not all. Women now find that their entitlement to widows benefit is to be cut. Their husbands may have paid into national insurance for years, but that means nothing to the Labour Government. It does not matter how much has been contributed. If a woman has no dependent children, after six months she will not get widows benefit. Some 250,000 women will lose out. How is that delivering for women?
There are other examples of the way in which Government policy is failing to take account of the needs of women. Far from mainstreaming women's concerns, too often the Government are marginalising them. In the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, for example, changes are being made to disability benefits. Severe disablement allowance was described by the Disability Benefits Consortium in the following terms:
The introduction of SDA was a victory for the women's movement.
However, the consortium goes on to state:
We view with dismay the abolition of Severe Disablement Allowance to all new claimants over the age of 24. We believe this change will have a particularly harsh impact on severely disabled women—61 per cent. of SDA recipients are women and amongst older women the proportion rises to 70 per cent.
Cutting off women's ability to get severe disablement allowance—how is that delivering for women?
Let us consider the changes to incapacity benefit proposed in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. Those changes mean that to qualify for incapacity benefit, in future a person will have to have paid national insurance contributions for one of the previous two years. Failure to have done so will mean that that person will fail to get benefit. That will impact particularly hard on those who are carers, those in lower paid jobs below the threshold for national insurance contributions, and those who have two part-time jobs that are each below that threshold. It will hit disabled women and many women who are carers, who are unable to build up a record of contributions and who do not claim invalid care allowance. Restricting the benefit opportunities for women—how is that delivering for women?
Pensions issues are further examples. In its response to the pensions Green Paper, the National Council of Women criticised the Government's proposals as complex and confusing. The NCW is concerned that not enough is being done to educate women, young and old, about pensions and the options available to them, especially looking ahead to the new complex and confusing pensions scenario proposed by the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
The National Council of Women has described as "regrettable" the fact that the Government have launched the stakeholder pensions part of the Bill before the consultation period on the proposals has ended. That is regrettable, indeed, but perhaps not surprising, given the contempt that the Government so often show for consultation. Pensions are a key area of concern for


women, and it is more than regrettable that the Government have not listened to women before embarking on the changes.
It is not just in respect of social security and welfare benefits that the Government have failed to understand the needs of women. Part of the Government's claim to be delivering for women is that they are making it easier for women to get into the workplace by providing family-friendly employment policies. Conservatives support higher standards for workers and more flexible working arrangements to meet the challenges of family and work responsibilities. However, we do not believe that the corporatist attitude of the Government is the right way forward.
Countries with more flexible labour markets are generally better at integrating women into the work force. David Soskice, the director of the Institute for Employment and Economic Change in Berlin, wrote recently:
Well educated women do significantly better in the US (and Britain) than in Germany, Japan or Sweden. Upwardly mobile women should be wary of proposals to develop a northern European type labour market".
That is just the sort of labour market that the Labour Government are intent on producing in this country.

Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because it is important to clarify one or two points. As has been said, 1.3 million women will benefit from the national minimum wage and women will also benefit from the fairness at work proposals. Will the Conservative party go into the next election saying that it would reverse the national minimum wage proposals, which would effectively cut the wages of 1.3 million women? Will it also be saying that it would reduce women's rights at work?

Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because it is important to clarify one or two points. As has been said, 1.3 million women will benefit from the national minimum wage and women will also benefit from the fairness at work proposals. Will the Conservative party go into the next election saying that it would reverse the national minimum wage proposals, which would effectively cut the wages of 1.3 million women? Will it also be saying that it would reduce women's rights at work?

Mrs. May: The hon. Lady will have to be patient for a little while. I shall refer to the national minimum wage later on—[Interruption.] Just be patient, ladies. There is plenty of time for our manifesto for the next election to be written and for the hon. Lady to find out what our policies will be.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is not it a fact that more jobs for women have been created in this country over the past 15 to 20 years and that we have a higher percentage of women in the work force than any of those countries in Europe where there are restrictive practices? Is not it the job of a Government to create an economic climate in which more employment opportunities can be created?

Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. She is absolutely right: it is the Government's job to create the right economic climate so that jobs can be created, for men and women alike. There are so many women in the work force today precisely because of the policies followed by the Conservative party in government. In her opening speech, the Minister

praised the fact that there are so many women in the work force, but she failed to mention that that statistic is due to the policies of the previous Government.

Ms Jowell: Will the hon. Lady accept that there are 400,000 more jobs compared with the number available at the time of the general election?

Mrs. May: We left a golden legacy, but one job has been lost every 10 minutes under this Government.
The measures being introduced by the Government on the back of the social chapter and under the heading of family-friendly practices are, as yet, somewhat lacking in detail. For example, the Chemical Industries Association recently said:
Every employer in the chemical industry will be hit by the proposals on parental leave. It is worrying that with Parental Leave due to be implemented by the end of the year, we have seen no detailed proposals from the Government indicating to employers just what they will have to do…a consultation period of at least three months would be needed to assess the likely impact of the regulations and respond accordingly.
Where have the Government thought about the impact of what they describe as family-friendly policies on employers and the extent to which employers can afford them?

Caroline Flint: Is the hon. Lady not aware that the provision for parental leave was put together and negotiated by organisations representing European employers and trade unions?

Mrs. May: I am not sure what the hon. Lady expects anyone to say in response to that. Is she saying that the provision should be accepted because it was put together by a group of European organisations? She would do well to listen to the concerns expressed by employers' organisations in this country about the impact of the policy. It will do employees, male or female, no good at all if statutory requirements imposed by the Government mean that small businesses, or any business, cannot afford to keep employing them.
Real concern has been expressed by the Confederation of British Industry and by other organisations about the impact of the parental leave legislation, especially in respect of the way in which the measure may be open to abuse.
In its research paper on fairness at work, the Institute of Directors said:
Most fair employers won't mind giving time off for family situations.

Ms Jowell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No; I am in the middle of a quotation.
The paper continues:
However, if it is made a statutory right, some employees will see it as part of their holiday entitlement.
In Sweden, the Government have found it necessary to introduce a new law to curtail the problems caused by employees' abuse of emergency family leave rights.

Ms Jowell: Has the hon. Lady discussed the issue of family-friendly employment with her hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who has a long association with Asda? When Asda introduced family-friendly employment policies, the number of staff absences fell by 1 per cent. in the first year, saving the firm £3 million. Labour turnover has fallen by 4 per cent., saving £2.4 million. Some of Asda's stores have halved their labour turnover. More than 95 per cent. of female staff who have been on maternity leave are now returning to work. As a result of Asda's family-friendly policies, the number of customers has risen by 35 per cent., and the firm has experienced growth of 8.9 per cent. Does that not suggest that family-friendly employment is good for business and good for women?

Mrs. May: The Minister would not have needed to intervene if she had listened to what I was saying. I said earlier that Conservative Members support higher standards for workers, and support more flexible working arrangements to meet the challenges involved in fulfilling family and work responsibilities. Our concern relates to the way in which the Government are trying to impose their proposals on businesses of all sizes. I note that the laudable measures taken by Asda were taken without intervention from Government.
Good practice will be supported. The Institute of Directors made the position clear when it said:
Most fair employers won't mind giving time off for family situations.
The problem arises when the Government impose regulations and restrictions on businesses that cannot provide such opportunities. If a company already has problems and must shed employees because of the extra costs, that will not benefit any members of the work force, be they male or female.

Judy Mallaber: rose—

Mrs. May: I will give way, but then I will try to make progress.

Judy Mallaber: Does the hon. Lady recall that, during a debate on the Employment Relations Bill, the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry implied that even legislating for paternity leave at the time of birth was legislating too far, too fast? Does she agree with that?

Mrs. May: I think that what my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been stressing is the importance of flexibility and choice for those involved, rather than the Government simply legislating for things to happen at a particular time.
Labour Members should listen to what some parents are saying. In a recent edition of the Evening Standard, a member of the National Childbirth Trust was reported as saying that, in some ways, time-off-work measures were an empty gesture, because many families could not do without the income for three months. That, however, is not the only way in which the Government are potentially attacking the market for jobs, especially jobs held by women. The minimum wage, for instance, is likely to have a strong impact on a number of industries that traditionally employ a large number of women. The textile

industry and the retail sector are good examples. Bill Martin, chief economist at Phillips and Drew Fund Management, has said:
If one person loses his job because of the minimum wage that is bad news but we expect there to be up to 90,000 job losses in the textile sector and hotel and retail sector
All those sectors are traditionally high employers of women. How can 90,000 job losses benefit women? How can that be an example of the Government delivering for women?
In his intervention during the opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) made the valid point that, in his experience—he had visited a pre-school this morning that had made exactly the following point—such schools will have problems meeting the requirements.

Jacqui Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No. I will try to make some progress.
Such schools will have problems meeting the cost of the minimum wage for their employees. It is a complaint that I, too, have heard from pre-schools. They are concerned about the impact of the Government's legislation.

Ms Jowell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: I will in just a minute.
That legislation will have two impacts: first, on women who are employed by pre-schools that are unable to keep going; secondly, on women who want their children to attend those pre-schools. Potentially, it reduces choice for women.

Ms Jowell: Can we return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton): is it now the Opposition's policy to abolish the minimum wage and to return 1.3 million women to poverty pay?

Mrs. May: I answered that question when it was asked, so I suggest that the Minister looks at the answer in Hansard tomorrow. It might help her, if she cares to read it.
The Government are loading £40 billion of extra costs on to British business, which will reduce competitiveness and lead to job losses. Many women will suffer as a result. How is that delivering for women?

Jacqui Smith: Is the hon. Lady aware that exactly the same arguments were made about equal pay legislation, and what happened to women's employment after that was introduced?

Mrs. May: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It was, of course, under the previous Government that the differentials between male and female pay reduced significantly. There is more to be done, but it is sad that, last year, under a Labour Government, the differential increased, rather than reduced.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: I will not take any more interventions.
The Government are loading extra costs on to business, which will affect women's jobs. Many women will suffer as a result. That is not delivering for women.
As if that were not enough, I mention one other area where, somewhat surprisingly, women have found themselves under attack from the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister has attacked people who drive children to school and the increased use of cars. Women make up one of the key user groups that has led to a significant increase in car usage in recent years. He wants to attack and to cut that growth. He wants to stop women from driving their children to school, regardless of whether they do so to meet their working needs, or to exercise choice as to which school their children attend.
Many women would have felt that they were highly unlikely to come under attack from the Deputy Prime Minister. Sadly, that was not the case. There is a complete lack of joined-up thinking in the Government. It is not true that women's issues are firmly at the centre of Government policy, or that the Minister for women looks, as was promised, at every piece of legislation that goes through and ensures that it does not have an adverse effect on women. In many areas of Government policy, the headlines claim that they are helping women. The reality is that women will suffer as a result of those policies.
I could go on. There are many examples from Department to Department where, far from mainstreaming women's issues, putting them firmly at the centre of Government policy and looking at the impact of policy on women, the Government have pushed women to one side. They talk a lot about women and child care, but they do not deliver policies that will help in a practical sense.
Women are being hit through the benefit system and are under attack in transport policy. Their jobs are under threat from the Government's adherence to the social chapter and handling of the economy.
The Government claim to understand women's needs, but they fail to act. They follow their own priorities. Perhaps the best example of that was at the relaunch of the women's unit last November, when the Government came up with the idea of a panel of role models for young women and girls. The panel was to include a former topless model, the former Ginger Spice. However, when those women and girls were asked what they wanted, the panel got the thumbs down.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No; I am sorry. I am coming to the end of my speech, and I shall not give way.
I quote an article from the Daily Mail of Tuesday, 10 November, which stated:
Ministers backpedalled furiously yesterday on plans to use celebrities such as Geri Halliwell as role models for teenage girls.
The initiative was reconsidered when it emerged that girls admired their own mothers or sisters more than the former Ginger Spice.
The Government had planned to invite celebrities—actress Emma Thompson, therapist Susie Orbach and pop starlet Billie were among others—to join an advisory panel to reflect teenagers' views.
With overtones of the 'committee for cool', the Foreign Office's panel of hip young things promoting Cool Britannia abroad, it sounded like a classic New Labour solution. But when the new crusade on women's issues was launched yesterday, the scheme had been pushed to one side.

Pupils of North Westminster Community School, who met Baroness Jay, Tessa Jowell, the Commons Minister for Women, and Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Employment and Equal Opportunities yesterday, described the idea of celebrity role models as patronising.
Sadly, patronising is what sums up the Government's attitude to women.
Before the general election, the Government promised women so much. Since then, their approach has been more one of, "There, there Dear. We'll tell you we're doing something, but, if we're not, it really won't matter, because you probably won't notice." But women are noticing.
Perhaps the Government should take some notice of the comments made by the teenage girls interviewed, last November, about the issue of the role models panel. The Daily Mail article went on to say:
The girls also appeared less than thrilled at being singled out. 'It seems to me boys need support as well', said Terri Roach.
On 10 November, The Independent also dealt with the matter:
'"Why isn't there a men's unit as well?' said Nepa Chopra. 'I want equality. I don't want women to go round wanting to be better than men.'
'"I don't want women being given jobs or being made cabinet ministers just because they're women' said Vicky Markham.
Emma Blackburn said:
'Men have problems as well that should be addressed.'
The sad fact is that men and women are now realising that Labour's promises are evaporating. Labour's actions are failing to deliver. The Government are not delivering for women—they are not delivering for any of us. They are certainly not delivering for the United Kingdom.

Ms Harriet Harman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health on the work that she is doing, and fully agree with the points that she made in her speech. I shall take the very welcome opportunity of today's debate—which the Government have called to mark the week in which we celebrate international women's day—to raise some issues and ask some questions about the Government's relationship with women.
I believe that this Government have done a great deal for women, yet that is not fully the perception. I do not believe that women feel that this is their Government as strongly as men feel that this is their Government, who are there for them. Before I offer some explanations of why that may be so, and suggest what can be done about it, I should like to spend a few minutes reinforcing my point that the Government, and new Labour, have already met a great many women's concerns. The list is impressive.
The Government are establishing universal, affordable and high-quality child care provision, which has long been a demand of the women's movement and, certainly, a major issue for mothers in my constituency. There has been a massive increase in child benefit—public money paid to women with children. The new deal for lone parents recognises, for the first time, that the billions of pounds that are spent on advice and training for work should go to help not only men but women. The working families tax credit and the minimum wage are, in practice, a massive redistribution towards low-paid women and


their families. Moreover, there will be equal representation of women in both the new National Assembly for Wales and the new Parliament for Scotland.
Why are feminists not in the vanguard of support for new Labour, and why are women not the most committed to, rather than the most doubtful of, the Government? I would like to make suggestions as to why that might be the case, and what the Government could do about it. Men in the Government must always remember that they are talking to women as well as to men. Where the Government are making changes that will be important for women, such as policies to help them to balance their home and work responsibilities, they should give them much more attention. Where the Government are making policy that will particularly affect women, such as family policy, men must not do it on their own, but do it jointly with women. There needs to be a genuine sharing of power with women within the Government, not just a sharing of positions.
My first point is that the Government should remember that they are talking to women as well as to men. This is about style, but it is also about content. They must avoid falling back on militaristic, macho, hierarchical language and behaviour. It is a turn-off for women and alienates them from their Government. The Government know the importance of communication and need to remember that they are speaking to women as well as men. I shall give one small example. When the Government, in the wake of the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—which I deeply regretted— rightly tried to refocus the media agenda, they did so by announcing that that would be led by the big guns, the big hitters and the big beasts. No women talk about women whom they respect in that way. It was clearly men talking about men to other men. Would women talk about the big hitters in the Government tackling domestic violence? I do not think so. Would women in Northern Ireland talk about their Secretary of State as a big gun? Would women talk about big beasts implementing our child care programme? Of course not.
People can dismiss that as political correctness, but it is a serious point. One can either adopt macho rhetoric or one can talk to women—one cannot do both. I am certain that women do not want a Government of big guns, big hitters or big beasts; they want a Government who understand their changed and changing lives and who deliver for men, but also deliver for them and for their families. The Government are for women, and they should not be afraid to say so.
My second point is that there needs to be a greater focus on those issues that are important to women, which should be moved higher up the political agenda. Take family-friendly employment. In the Employment Relations Bill, as well as a new right to trade union recognition, there is a new right for employees to take family leave. That is of huge importance to women. It recognises for the first time that half the work force are women and that most of those women are someone's mother. The ability of those women to balance their important home and work responsibilities is critical. Until now, the law has not recognised that the economy depends on women's as well as men's work. Employees can get time off if they are sick, but not if their child is sick. Employment law assumes that an employee is a man who has a wife at home to look after a sick child. That will change under the new legislation. That will be a huge

relief to women, who will not have to pretend that they are ill when it is their child who is ill, or send a sick child to the childminder rather than risk losing their job.
Yet, there has been hardly a whisper about that new right and the other new rights to time off, such as when elderly relatives need care. In contrast, hours of debate in the House, hours of Ministers' time and acres of newsprint have been taken up with the debate about trade union recognition, and that has squeezed out the debate on family leave, yet that new right should command our time and attention as well.
That right, which I am sure that all would support in principle, could be highly controversial to put into practice. If we get it right, it will be a huge plus for women, but if, through lack of attention, we get it wrong, it will be an embarrassment for the Government. The last thing that we want is for the Government to falter when implementing new and important rights for women.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has, to his credit, given high priority to the issue, as have Ministers with responsibilities for women. It is high time that everyone else did so as well. I make that point not just to the Government, but to all Members of Parliament—men as well as women—and the representatives of business and trade unions.
Thirdly, men in the Government must avoid doing policy-making on their own. They must do it with women on equal terms. Take policy on the family. I pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary for moving family policy up the political agenda. However, the family is about men and women. Sometimes, that is not an easy relationship. The high divorce rate tells us only about those who have not made it and have resolved to end it. Family life is nearly always a balance between the interests of men and of women. Family policy presented only by men, however right or carefully thought out it may be, will sound and feel like patriarchy. Women will not listen to men telling them about their families, so we need a higher profile for women Ministers on the issue—Ministers such as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health. Policy on domestic violence is currently the responsibility of a male Minister in the Home Office. That responsibility should be shared with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), working in partnership with Ministers with responsibility for women.
My fourth, final and most important point—the one that presents the greatest challenge—is that there needs to be a genuine sharing of power, not just of positions, between men and women at all levels in the Government. There should be more women in the Government. We need to support them more than we do; they need to support each other; and men in the Government need to make space for them.
On that last point, I should like to draw a parallel with devolution. The Government are devolving power away from Westminster to Scotland and Wales because they believe that that is right. Democracy in the centre and in the devolved areas will grow stronger as a result. However, the Government have learned that they are devolving power to Scotland and Wales in a climate of scepticism. People who are used to being powerless remain suspicious even when they are being given power. They suspect the motives and the extent of change.
When men offer to share power with women, sometimes the sceptics are partly right. It is not easy for anyone to give away power. Not everyone in government has the same commitment. It is easy for people to give power to those who are the same as they are, but that is pointless. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will be different from Westminster. That is why they are worth setting up. The same goes for men sharing power with women.
Women in government are not the same as men in government. Women and men are shaped by their experience and, because of tradition, history and, above all, the division of labour in the home, women still lead different lives. That difference makes it a challenge for men to share power at the top, but it is worth doing and it is necessary. Our policy will be better and our democracy will be refreshed when we are genuinely a Government of, and for, women and men on equal terms.
I should like to take this opportunity to tell women that the Government are delivering for them, although there is more to be done. My message for the Government is that they have already done a tremendous amount to improve women's lives, but they still have further to go.

Jackie Ballard: It is just over a year since we last had an opportunity to debate the Government's priorities and policies for women. The debate a year ago was held on a poorly attended Friday morning. I think that the same cast of players were here then as we have at this slightly better attended debate on a Monday afternoon. I hope that next time the debate will be even better attended.
Sadly, during the past year the two Ministers with responsibilities for women have been moved on without explanation and for no apparent reason, before they had time to get to grips with the challenges in their roles. I am sorry that the Government have not appointed a Minister for Women who has no other major portfolio or responsibility. I agree with the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on that.
The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) rightly said that the Government do not have the appeal to women that they might think that they should have. That is partly because of their way of communicating. Government communications still use male language. Although there are a number of women in the Cabinet, the main spending Departments are headed by male Secretaries of State.
I acknowledge—graciously, I hope—that the Government have made progress on a number of issues, including child care and the proposals for family-friendly working practices. However, I am a member of an Opposition party, so I am sure that the Minister will understand if I concentrate constructively on areas where the Government could do more.
According to the Equal Opportunities Commission, only 33 per cent. of managers and administrators are women—yet, as the Minister pointed out, 45 per cent. of all workers are women. In 1975, women earned only 71 per cent. of male earnings. Twenty years later, that had increased to 80 per cent—still one fifth less than average male earnings. Our society cannot be judged to be healthy if women still earn that much less on average than men for doing the same job, despite equal pay legislation.
Many women work part-time, especially those with caring responsibilities, and part-time workers are in an even worse position. Their hourly wage is less than two thirds that of full-time male workers. Despite legislation against sex discrimination, women are still discriminated against—especially in the work force and in terms of social security. Some 2 million women earn too little to pay national insurance contributions, and will—if the contributory principle remains—become poor pensioners in the years to come.
Around two thirds of widows live on or below the income support level. There can be no equality for women until they are economically independent and economically equal. I hope that the Budget will not take a retrograde step towards ending separate taxation for couples in order to tax the child benefit of high earners.
Each year, the Equal Opportunities Commission presents its report to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Last year, I sought to get the report debated in Parliament, but I was unsuccessful. I hope that the Government will consider having not only an annual headline debate on their priorities for women, but a wider debate on sex equality, based on the EOC report.
One of the major pieces of work undertaken by the EOC last year was a proposal for a new sex equality law to replace equal pay and sex discrimination legislation. It proposed strengthening the rights of individuals and placing new responsibilities on employers and public authorities. The proposed legislation would provide better regulation and help to reduce the incidence of expensive litigation, which can arise when organisations fail to build gender equality into their plans, programmes and practices. I hope that the Government will make a commitment today to review the current legislation, and to introduce their own equality legislation in the next Session of Parliament. I will be interested to hear the Minister's response.
That would be a real step forward, not just for women who face discrimination on gender grounds, but for men—because equality is not just about women's rights. Women are still under-represented in many areas of life. I will not repeat the arguments that I have made often in this House on the gender balance in Parliament. I am too well aware of the problems in my party in that regard.
Those who wield power in Britain are still overwhelmingly male—just look at High Court judges, heads of large companies, newspaper editors and members of powerful quangos. That shows how far we have to go before the glass ceiling is broken. The Government have a stated aim to achieve parity in appointments to quangos, although I do not think that as much progress has been made as could have been. The Minister referred to health trust appointments, but 50 per cent. has not been achieved in appointing women chairs to the new regional development agencies.
The Government have done nothing to encourage the number of women in the judiciary. Women's organisations across the country say that the judiciary is in desperate need of reform—especially in areas such as domestic violence, rape and other issues. There are still no women in the highest court in the land, and only 7 per cent. in the High Court. I hope that Ministers have the ear of the Lord Chancellor on the issue, and that we will soon have a more transparent system of appointing judges that includes a balance of women. There is no shortage of able


women in the legal profession, and I know that during the last round of appointments, the names of a number of able women were proposed by women barrister associations and women lawyer associations as being suitable for appointment.
The fact that those wielding power are men conditions the way in which decisions are made that affect all our lives. Any decision or action by Government, or anyone who holds power, is bound to affect men and women differently. I am pleased that the Government have recognised that fact, and I hope that the Cabinet Sub-Committee examining Government legislation for its impact on women will be listened to by all Departments. For example, some of the Government's welfare reform proposals will have an impact on women, including the abolition of the severe disablement allowance to new claimants aged over 24–61 per cent. of whom are women. However, because the Cabinet Sub-Committee meets in secret, we do not know what it thought about the proposal.
I would like this country to have what many other legislatures have—a Select Committee on equality, to examine all proposed legislation for its impact on equality; not just in gender, but other areas. A pre-legislative Select Committee, made up of Members from all parties, which met in public, could provide proper scrutiny of Government legislation.
I wish to refer to paid work versus caring responsibilities. The belief in paid work as a panacea for all society's ills does not give adequate recognition of the contribution that women make as members of the unpaid economy, both in their role as carers and in holding together thousands of voluntary organisations on which society has come to depend. The Minister talked about work conferring a sense of independence and value, but parenting provides a sense of value also. It is the most difficult job in the world to do, and being a single parent is even more difficult than being part of a couple of parents. However, it is also the most rewarding job in the world.
The economic value of the unpaid economy, in which women are predominant, is not recognised, although both the paid and the unpaid economies are interdependent. To remove labour from the unpaid economy would have dire economic consequences, which even the experts—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)— have not fully estimated.

Mr. Steve Webb: It is my fault, is it?

Jackie Ballard: It is not my hon. Friend's fault. I am saying that my hon. Friend, who is such an expert on these matters, has not fully computed the impact.
If the pool of unpaid labour is not replenished with new volunteers, there will be a cost to society of providing care from the paid sector. The Government's schizophrenic attitude towards unpaid caring is at odds with their desire to promote and subsidise child care provided by the paid economy. The implication seems to be that non-parents provide better care than parents.
Inasmuch as the House has a role in promoting lifestyles for women—it has a very small role—in terms of them staying at home or going out to work, I would like us to give women real options and choices. Many individuals, especially women, cannot have meaningful

choices unless the Government take action to remove the barriers to those choices. Those barriers are not just economic—they are social, political and cultural. Otherwise, there can be no progress and the inequalities in society will remain entrenched.
Universal access to child care will not be provided solely by the private sector—the market will not meet all needs. Universal child care has been mentioned, but it is not universal yet, and we have some way to go before it is as accessible in rural constituencies, such as mine, as it may be in inner-city communities. It is not universally easily accessible for those on average or lower incomes.
I welcome the Government's national child care strategy, which is a step in the right direction and something for which we have waited for a long time. It will be difficult to build a properly universal strategy that will give accessible and affordable child care to all those who want it. In the beginning, there are difficult choices. Should the priority be allowing people with children under five to get back on the career ladder quickly, or providing after-school clubs for children of school age?
Like many other women Members, I have in the past juggled with a variety of forms of child care. One cannot simply find one child minder who will do everything. Often one has to find one person for before school, one person for after school and someone else in the holidays; and then what does one do when the child is sick? We have all had that awful guilt feeling when we have sent our children to school because we are sure that they are not really ill, but we are not sure whether we are acting for their convenience or ours.
The women's jury, set up by previous Ministers for Women, concluded that women want genuine choice and help with balancing work and family life. It also felt that child care should be provided in conjunction with family-friendly policies in employment. I welcome the Government's recognition of that.
I hope that business, too, will recognise that both fathers and mothers are parents and that mothers will not have freedom until fatherhood is taken seriously by employers. Fathers should be entitled to paternal leave when a child is born. I read a letter in one of the newspapers this morning from a father who did not understand why he would want leave when a child is born, because his wife would not want him there for a couple of months after having the baby, so that she could bond with the child. What a strange father he must be.
Either parent should have an entitlement to paid leave to cope with the inevitable childhood illnesses; it should not always have to be the mother. No professional carer will look after an ill child for a day, and when children are ill there is no emotional substitute for a parent. If parental leave is not paid, as the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham said, it will in practice be denied to the lower paid. I hope that, at the very least, the Government will consider enabling low-paid women to go on and off income support easily, so that they, too, can take parental leave.
Functional families need functional parents who are not tied to their desks or production line. We must get away from the idea that people need to prove their commitment or ambition by getting into work at 7 am and leaving at 11 pm. Perhaps we should take a lead by working more normal hours, both in Westminster and in our constituencies. So many of us now are parents that we


ought to be able to have some influence. I hope that we will take a lead from the Scottish Parliament, which will work normal hours when it sets up later this year.
Sadly, not all families are functional. Violence in the home is experienced by thousands of women—and by men—every year. Domestic violence is one of the Government's stated priorities for action, but the voluntary sector, which provides most of the services for victims of violence, is underfunded and suffers the double blow of withdrawal of grants by local authorities whose budgets are under severe pressure. There is a patchwork of provision of refuges, with availability of help varying from area to area, and many police forces still do not provide all their officers with training in dealing with complaints of domestic violence.
Domestic violence cuts across many departmental responsibilities, with input from the Department of Social Security, the Department of Health, the Home Office and probably other Departments that I have forgotten. The Government say that they are committed to joined-up thinking and have set up many cross-departmental working parties, but joined-up thinking needs joined-up resources, and there is as yet no evidence of that. Instead, there is a multiplicity of sources for bidding for funds. Domestic violence is too serious to be left to a lottery of fund bidding and funding.
All people want equality, not special treatment. Our daughters are beginning to expect equality as the norm, but it should also be the right of women currently on pensions or about to retire; of those doing the same job as a man but getting less pay; and of those whose choice is to look after their children at home or to take care of an elderly relative. Only then will both men and women be liberated to take on whatever roles they choose.
As the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham said, men losing some of their powers in some areas will gain advantages in others, giving them the freedom to take on roles involving caring or staying at home, which in the past they felt were not open to them. Surely that should be our aim.
As the Minister said, better for women is better for all. That is why it is especially disappointing that so few men have chosen to take part in this debate—there are one or two honourable exceptions—which is not only about women but is, and should be, about both genders.
Women should not have to pay the price of cuts in Government spending or suffer because of the history of a male-dominated political culture. The Government are tackling many of the issues, but much remains to be done. I hope that we will not have to wait another full year before we can debate their priorities in this area.

Valerie Davey: I am delighted to contribute to this debate following a weekend in Bristol during which many groups of women and their families came together to celebrate both the women's world day of prayer and international women's day. Individual women started both those now traditional celebrations.
Perhaps it is ironic that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) should have spoken of the problems affecting textile workers in connection with

the minimum wage, since international women's day stems from demonstrations in 1857 by New York women in the textile and garment industries. Because of low pay and the frustration and concern that they felt, they banded together and probably thereby started international women's day.
We had music, dance and poetry in a celebration hosted by Bristol city council. People came not only to look back but to look forward and to recognise what the Government have begun to do to meet women's needs and give them greater choice. We must remember that the movements were born in the adversity of New York, where new immigrants had to live in slum dwellings, were out of work and lacked health and education facilities. That is the context in which we look forward to improving conditions for women.
Make Votes Count, an all-party organisation that seeks to increase political involvement and accountability, also held a meeting in Bristol.
This year, we celebrate the 80th anniversary of the first woman taking her place in the House, yet only 239 women have ever been elected as Members of Parliament. It is a telling fact that 121 of us—more than half the total—are Members now. There is a long way to go. We are still only 18 per cent., or about one in five. We need more women to be involved.
We need to take a deep look at making women's votes count and allowing women to be more involved in Parliament and local government.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Like the hon. Lady, I believe that we must get as many people as possible to vote in any democratic election. What are the hon. Lady or her party doing to encourage more women to vote in the vital forthcoming local elections? Does she share my concern at the fact that sometimes less than 30 per cent. of the electorate vote—never mind the percentage of women who vote?

Valerie Davey: If the hon. Lady had come to Bristol yesterday and seen the stalls, and the women urging people to participate in the city council elections to come, and the way in which the city council opened its doors, she would have been encouraged.
We must seriously consider more radical suggestions, such as everyone being able to vote in the supermarket or by post. That is exactly what Make Votes Count was discussing.
The other group marching through the streets of Bristol was Jubilee 2000. The people were not so much marching as dancing, because they were led by a rumba band. It was a lovely, colourful occasion, but it brought home the fact that poverty around the world has a female face. I was delighted to see a Minister from the Department for International Development on the Front Bench earlier, in recognition of the fact that the issue is of international concern.
I wish to share with the House some facts and figures provided at a seminar organised by the Department for International Development on gender development and poverty. The international facts are reflected in this country. Some 70 per cent. of the world's 1.3 billion poorest people are women. Political participation by women is low. Around the world women hold only 11.7 per cent. of seats in parliaments. We have 18 per


cent. here, but that is not enough. Some 60 per cent. of the world's nearly 1 billion illiterate adults are women. Thanks to this Government, more money will be put in to that area; it needs to be because, of the 130 million children who are not in school, two thirds are girls.
Worldwide, women earn 75 per cent. of the pay of men for the same work. The value of women's unpaid housework and community work is now estimated by the United Nations to be 35 per cent. of gross domestic product worldwide. In most countries, women work approximately twice the unpaid time that men do. Up to 50 per cent. of women experience some degree of domestic violence during marriage worldwide, and in this country the figure is 25 per cent. The most poignant and important figure is that 585,000 die every year from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. That is more than 1,600 women every day. In sub-Saharan Africa, one in 13 women will die from pregnancy and childbirth causes, compared to one in 3,300 in the United States of America. There is so much to do to improve women's health and to give women the choice about childbirth. All the neglect of girls and the preference shown for boys causes an unhappy and appalling situation for many women in the world.
I am proud that the Government are concerned about the plight of women in this country and are extending that concern to women worldwide. I assure the Minister that whichever Minister comes to Bristol for the listening to women day, planned for next month, she will hear questions from women in Bristol that will be varied and set in a global context.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to have caught your eye so early, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have to attend an engagement in the Speaker's House at 6.45 pm. I also apologise if I Miss the winding-up speeches. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) talked about the role of women in the textile industry and congratulated the Government on what they have done for women. However, Bill Martin, the chief economist at PDFM, has said:
If one person loses his job because of the minimum wage that is bad news but we expect there to be up to 90,000 job losses in the textile sector and hotels and retail sector.
I do not need to tell the hon. Lady that most of those people will be women.
Looking around the Chamber, I can see more women here as a percentage than usual. The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was right when she said that we do not have enough women Members of Parliament. However, we should not condemn ourselves too readily, because although the Westminster Parliament's record is not good, the Assemblée Nationale has an especially bad reputation. Whether its current policy of parité will have any effect, only time will tell. Currently, fewer than 10 per cent. of Members of the Assemblée Nationale are women. As we have heard, the Labour party tried to introduce women-only lists for candidate selection, but that was ruled unlawful and was stopped.

Ms Joan Ryan: In relation to that point and to the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention, does he feel that he is here on merit, or as token man?

Mr. Fabricant: As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said, I took part in the debate on this issue

a year ago, so I like to think that I am taking part as a matter of consistency. I am also taking part because I was an employer—and I shall come back to that point.
I am firmly committed to equal opportunities for all, whether for women or ethnic minorities. However, I firmly oppose the introduction of quotas, which serve only to reduce standards. If a woman cannot make it through her ability, she should not do the job in the first place. The role of Government is to break down the barriers of prejudice so that women and the ethnic minorities are given equal opportunities with men.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that there has not been a Scottish Conservative woman Member of Parliament since Anna McCurley, so his opinion of his female colleagues in Scotland seems to be extremely poor.

Mr. Fabricant: I am sad to say that Scotland does not have a Conservative Member of Parliament at all at the moment.
Now I must admit to the House—mea culpa—that when I ran a broadcast finance and engineering group before 1992, almost all our operational employees were men. The head of finance, the head of engineering and the head of marketing were all men. All the research and development team were men. I admit that I am ashamed of that record. We recruited from the BBC, Rediffusion and other organisations, and they, too, were staffed mainly by men in engineering positions. That was wrong. My only claim to fame is that, when I was at university, I went out with a girl who subsequently became the BBC's first female boom operator—although I doubt whether that was because she went out with me.
Nothing in the Minister's speech today would have helped the situation. Nothing that the Government are doing would have helped me or other employers to employ women. The debate is entitled, "The Government's priorities for women: progress on their delivery". Like all Government policies, it is like those blister-wrap packages on sale in supermarkets: it makes a cheap, tacky product look exciting and fresh. A pair of mechanical shears is needed to break into it. When you finally get to look at the product that you have purchased, you realise that you have fallen for the marketing spiel and the bright colours, but the contents are cheap and tacky and—more important—do not work, with or without batteries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has already mentioned the problems facing playgroups, such as my local one in Lichfield. They are typical of the problems facing many women in employment.
I have always made it clear that I do not oppose the national minimum wage in principle. However, the Prime Minister defended the minimum wage by saying, "There was such a system in the United States of America, so why isn't good enough for us?" I agree with that, but the minimum wage in the United States has numerous exemptions, including charities and caring organisations. Playgroups would not fall under the ambit of the USA's legislation, and American playgroups would not face the problems that ours do. There are also regional variations for the minimum wage in the United States, and many exemptions depend on the type of job.
For the sake of packaging and dogma, however, our Government could not allow any exemptions. The economy will reap the whirlwind, and the first people to suffer will be women—both those who work in playgroups and those who hope to send their children to playgroups while they go out to work.

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fabricant: I give way to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has never been an employer in her life.

Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that children placed in a care environment should have the staff of the best quality in terms of both training and pay? We must pay for an environment in which our children can be looked after, and decent pay and decent training are part of that.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady shows her own naivety and that of those on the Labour Benches in the way that she puts her question. If playgroups go out of business because of the minimum wage, there will be no environment at all—good or bad. Moreover, parents will be unable to go out to work, so they will not have the equal opportunity that the hon. Lady seeks. She may nod her head at me, but if she had ever worked in industry instead of being a trade union official or whatever she was, she would know better than to ask such a damned stupid question.
There is a similarity with the law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created from nothing. In the same way, the mere setting of higher wages means that someone is bound to suffer. Small businesses and young women will suffer most. It will take time for that to show, but the minimum wage and other Bills going through Parliament will harm rather than enhance women's employment prospects.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that women, whatever job they are in, should earn £1.50 or £2 or £2.50 or £3 an hour? Is that acceptable in today's society?

Mr. Fabricant: It is wrong for women—and for men— to be exploited. However, it is better to be employed than to have one's firm go out of business and not employ anyone. We have already heard that many good firms such as Asda, the John Lewis Partnership and Marks and Spencer have women-friendly policies and care about their employees—both men and women. However, those firms can afford it. There are many industries—we have heard already about textiles—that cannot afford it. The Government's legislation—including the minimum wage with its lack of exemptions, unlike the minimum wage in the United States—will create unemployment. The first category of people to become unemployed will be the very people whom we are debating—women. Mark my words on that point.
Since the Government came to power, 25,000 women have lost their jobs in the textile industry. A recent article in The Economist predicted that the textile industry might be forced to shed another 30 per cent. of its work force— around 100,000 jobs.
The minimum wage is not the only problem. Let us remind ourselves of the burdens put on businesses during 22 short months of Labour Government: the windfall tax of £5.2 billion in July 1997; the past two Budgets, which added taxes of £19.15 billion; the national minimum wage, which is costing £8.1 billion; the working time directive, which is costing £6.65 billion; the European works councils directive, which is costing £0.085 billion; and parental leave, which is costing £0.11 billion. All that totals £39.3 billion of taxes on business. If a business can afford that, some Labour Members might say, "So be it." However, many businesses cannot afford it, and it will cost people their jobs.
The Prime Minister said that his Government would make a difference. He was right. The difference will be fewer opportunities for women to achieve gainful employment. The Government call themselves new Labour, but they are not new. They have not learned that Governments cannot create jobs: only businesses can do so. The Government's constant interference, ranging from tinkering to hammer blows, has done nothing for opportunities for women.
The Government have offered hope to many. Every new initiative has been trumpeted from every rooftop— though rarely first in Parliament. Every old initiative has been dusted down and regularly relaunched from every rooftop. Never has the Central Office of Information been so busy sending out e-mails, faxes and photocopies. Entire forests have been destroyed to provide the paperwork as each initiative has been announced and reannounced.
Up to 3 pm today, there had been no fewer than four announcements about this debate.
Make way for women—Nick Raynsford tells the construction industry",
said one news release. Apart from the title, however, and apart from the fact that the Minister for London and Construction was addressing the women in construction conference in London, the release makes no reference at all to women.
Another news release announced:
Minister for Women addresses global videoconference".
A third states:
UK Armed Forces—celebrating International Women's Day".
A fourth is entitled, "International Women's Day— delivering for women". No doubt there have been yet more news releases since 3 pm.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Fabricant: I shall not give way, as I promised you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would be brief, and as I have given way five or six times already.
An elderly gentleman stands every Saturday in the precinct in Lichfield with a sandwich board around his shoulders, teaching the word of the Lord. As he might well say, "The time of reckoning is at hand." Newspapers in the west midlands are fed up with the Government, whose Barbie-doll policies ought to be confined to the playground. The newspapers have seen how few expectations have been met for men, let alone women. The Government are all gloss and no substance, and women are most likely to suffer from that.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: I congratulate Ministers on initiating the debate. Most women are neither "Superwoman" nor the little woman at home who gets the slippers and supper ready. It is sad that so many women underestimate themselves. Many felt increasingly frustrated with a society that demanded black and white choices of them, when they could have chosen from a colourful spectrum of possibilities.
Women have been let down by previous Governments who did not respond to women's changed place in the labour market. Provision of child care has not caught up with working women's changed roles, or with their desire and their need to work. Since their election just over 20 months ago, the Labour Government have produced many policies that will improve the lives of women and benefit their families. They are providing a choice of possibilities for women, and that is what is important.
I want to concentrate on two aspects of the debate— women and employment, and women and violence. More than half the United Kingdom's population are women— 29.9 million. Some 12 million of those women are in employment. Yet, in 1997, the Equal Opportunities Commission gave evidence to the Low Pay Commission stating that 40 per cent. of women earned less than £4.50 an hour—less than £8,775 a year for a 37½-hour week. Some 10 per cent. of women earned less than £3 an hour—under £6,000 a year.
Home workers—nearly always women—are often the most exploited workers. Some are paid as little as 50p an hour, and they are expected to run machines from their homes at their own expense. Most are self-employed, receiving no entitlement to holiday or sick pay, and never being eligible for an occupational pension. They will be among the 1.3 million people who will benefit from the introduction of a national minimum wage. In April, that will be welcomed by many, not least by some people I met recently—for example, a chambermaid in Halesowen in my constituency who works in a Birmingham hotel. She told me that she voted Labour for the first time in 1997 because our party was promoting the national minimum wage. She has a husband and three children but, in that hotel, she earns only £2.50 an hour. She will be one of the many women who will rejoice after 1 April.
In the west midlands region alone, there will be 230,000 workers who are likely to benefit from the national minimum wage. As the Low Pay Commission was told by the National Council for One Parent Families:
The advantage of replacing benefit income with earned income is real—it genuinely helps workers move out of the poverty trap.
The Government acknowledge that many women have a dual responsibility within the home and as employees. Some of the more forward-looking companies have offered flexible working arrangements and provided child care arrangements, but the majority have made no allowance for the additional responsibilities shouldered by women. Many women have had to make a choice between caring for children or dependent relatives, or pursuing a career of their choice. Many thousands of women have chosen part-time, low-paid and less responsible jobs than they are capable of simply because that enables them to combine domestic responsibilities and work.
That can affect women's income dramatically, both in the present and in the longer term. Women are less likely to have entitlement to a pension. The Employment

Relations Bill, currently going through the House, will extend maternity leave to 18 weeks for all women. It proposes that parents should be able to take up to three months parental leave when they have a baby or adopt a child. That will certainly help with the necessary adjustment that has to take place in a family when a new member joins it, whether by birth or adoption. It is an important time for one or both parents to spend with that child. The Bill also provides a right to reasonable time off for family emergencies.
There are 6 million carers in Britain, of whom 60 per cent. are women. They might be caring for a child with a disability or for an elderly or disabled relative; some are caring for both. I hope that the provisions of the Bill will cover carers because, despite the increased participation of women in the work force in the United Kingdom, evidence suggests that the number of carers is increasing—it rose by 800,000 in the five years between 1985 and 1990.
Provision of good-quality and affordable child care is essential for working parents; it is especially important for lone parents. I welcome the attention that the Government are paying to the provision of child care; that is long overdue. In my constituency a ward of almost 13,000 people has no child care provision; there are no registered child minders. Not everyone is able to rely on relatives to provide child care, which is why the Government's national child care strategy is to be welcomed. On Friday, I visited an after-school club in a primary school in Halesowen where there were 16 to 18 children. They were happy, motivated and enjoying themselves participating in a range of different activities, and they were given some sandwiches and fruit towards the end of their stay. I met two or three of the parents when they collected their children at 5.30. I did not have to ask them what they felt; they volunteered to me their gratitude that the possibility of the provision of child care had become a reality. It has made a huge difference to the working lives of some of those women, some of whom told me that they now work full-time for three days a week, compared with five days a week part-time. Clearly, that gives them a better opportunity in their careers.
I met a nurse who has recently graduated after completing her training and now works in the community. Her two daughters attend the after-school club, which has enabled her to take up her post in the community knowing that her children are safe, happy and well cared for. She told me that the club was reasonable and affordable, and means that she can have satisfying and enjoyable work and make a contribution to the community. She also told me that the trust is considering term-time work for staff with children. The Government have given the lead, and employers are taking up the challenge and addressing the issue.
My second point relates to women and violence. Women suffer horribly from violence at men's hands in the home and on the streets. Men still think that that behaviour can be excused by saying, "She asked for it." Of course women ask to be beaten black and blue, and of course they decide to wear a short skirt because they want to be raped. It has taken women's organisations decades of constant and concerted effort to obtain international recognition of the fact that violence against women is a human rights issue. The affirmation that such violence is a human rights problem entails Governments' obligation to recognise that women are entitled to be protected


against violence, and that that is their human right. Governments should guarantee that right and provide remedies when it is violated.
Violence against women is not a private, but a public issue. Government action is needed to protect women against violence, no matter who the perpetrators are. The Government accept their responsibility in that field and are committed to tackling all forms of violence against women. I welcome the Government's initiative to work across Departments to develop policies that combat violence against women—whether it be the Home Office developing a national strategy on domestic violence, or the Lord Chancellor's Department with its responsibility for family law.
Legislation against harassment and stalking has been introduced, as have ways in which vulnerable and intimidated witnesses can be helped to give evidence. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, local crime audits must be conducted. Those will help to focus on violence against women, whether in the home or in the community in which they live. It will no longer be possible to assume, "It doesn't happen here." The audits will identify the extent of the problem in each area, and help local authorities and voluntary organisations to develop the support services that are so necessary.
I welcome the Government's policies to date, because they are a good foundation on which we shall be able to build throughout this Parliament and the next. We never said that things would change overnight, but we do say that things are improving. I add my voice to those of women in my constituency and throughout the country who are celebrating international women's week, in congratulation and celebration of the Government's start on improving the lives of women.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Each year when I take part in this debate, I am not sure whether to welcome or deprecate it. It is sad that we continue to feel the need for a separate debate on women. I wonder whether we should be debating the excluded young men whom young women do not want to marry and with whom they do not want to have children—or rather, the young women will have the children, but do not want the responsibility of having the young men as husbands or even, dare I say it, partners.
For a long time, many of us have fought to achieve equality for women. Many hon. Members are old hands on that subject, not only through participation in debates in the House, but because we have campaigned for decades—in my case, I am happy to admit that it is since the 1960s—for equality for women. It is sad that the same subjects continue to come up, although the position has improved dramatically since I first started to debate such matters at university in the 1960s.
Let us consider the achievements of women. If one goes into a school and asks the girls what they plan to do, they are organised and clear in their views; they have clear goals and know what they want to achieve. They are pouring into universities and colleges, where they comprise at least 50 per cent. of students; they are gaining degrees and will make a huge impact on the professions. The situation has changed beyond all recognition. Police forces now recognise the problems of domestic violence

and have set up domestic violence centres. They know that, if they get a panicked telephone call in the early hours of the morning, they must respond quickly and do what they can to remove the perpetrator of violence against women.
The situation has changed in many ways. I am one of the oldies who remembers what it was like before. I campaigned for sex discrimination legislation and for the establishment of the Equal Opportunities Commission. However, in spite of those changes for the better, I now believe that we should consider long and hard whether the commission is still required.
I welcome the announcement that membership of the Women's National Commission will now include smaller women's groups. I campaigned hard for that inclusion when I was a member of a smaller group. I felt excluded from communicating to Government the clear and positive views of my group. If the Women's National Commission is now to encompass all smaller groups and if we assume—it is possibly a big assumption—that it will receive sufficient funds to service those groups properly, we should look to that body and to the women's unit to do the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
I believe that the Government—who claim all sorts of achievements with regard to women's issues—should review sex discrimination legislation and assess what does and does not work in that area. The Government must identify what formats are helpful and those that are past their sell-by date. Organisations such as the Equal Opportunities Commission were crucial in the early days, but I question whether their role remains important today.
The Government trumpet their achievements in the area of women's issues and we have spent hours considering on the Floor of the House and in Committee legislation that they claim will assist women. So why are we spending precious time today talking about women and women's issues when we have done nothing else ever since I returned to this place in November 1997? I have served on the Committee considering the working families tax credit. It contains some huge flaws, only some of which have been identified at this stage. However, that measure is discussed endlessly as a means of helping women.
My hon. Friend the maiden for—[Interruption.] That was an interesting slip of the tongue. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) pointed out that the working families tax credit contains a fundamental flaw which we fought hard to eliminate in the 1960s and 1970s: the transfer of money from the purse to the wallet. We fought for child benefit as opposed to a tax allowance that recognised the cost associated with raising children because we did not want money to go to the wallet. The Government are returning to the bad old days by reinstating that money to the wallet.

Mrs. May: I am also concerned about the transfer of funds from the purse to the wallet which will occur under the working families tax credit. Does my hon. Friend share my great concern that the issue has not been raised on the Labour Benches? I am somewhat surprised that Labour Members are entirely silent about the matter. They trumpet the advantages of the WFTC but are unable to see its flaws.

Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the silence was deafening from Labour Members during discussion of that issue in Committee. We made the point time and again, but it has remained unacknowledged.
I noted with interest that the Minister said that the working families tax credit would benefit families who earned up to £23,000. I was tempted at the time to ask whether she was formulating new policy in that area and reducing the taper—thereby reinforcing the poverty trap—or whether she did not know that the working families tax credit is available to families who earn up to £38,000. That creates the paradox whereby some people who pay 40 per cent. tax—that is, super tax—receive the working families tax credit. The logic behind that calculation is slightly beyond me—and we have received no answers from the Government.
Another interesting issue has arisen as a direct result of the working families tax credit and its interaction with the national minimum wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) referred to this matter, and it is one about which I have received several lobbying cards from my constituents on behalf of the Pre-School Learning Alliance. They point out the effect that the national minimum wage will have on pre-school employees and express the fear that it will damage that provision.
We agree that all four-year-olds should receive nursery education, but the previous Government ensured that choice remained. The minute that Labour was elected, it abolished nursery education vouchers and insisted upon free pre-school education for all children from the age of four onwards. The state-maintained sector is now eating into choice and the pre-school sector by reducing the age at which it is prepared to offer children nursery education. Pre-schools must not only deal with the consequences of the national minimum wage, but compete on an unfair basis—we welcome fair competition—with the maintained pre-school education sector.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I have listened to my hon. Friend's remarks with interest, and I agree with her entirely. This morning, I visited a playgroup in Rode Heath in my constituency, and exactly those points were raised with me. The playgroup serves a village and a rural area, and without the support of an extra grant, would not exist this year. Without that playgroup, there would be no provision in the area. It has been hit by provision for four-year-olds in the maintained sector and by the legislation introduced by the Government.

Mrs. Lait: I agree completely; my hon. Friend reinforces the point made by pre-schools.
However, there is another twist in the tale. Costs will be forced up by the minimum wage, which will prompt the pre-schools that survive to increase their prices. The working families tax credit and the child care tax credit will meet those costs, but prices will increase in the sector as a whole.
At the risk of being declared out of order—if that is possible in a debate such as this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I will compare that experience to what has happened in the rest homes sector. As soon as the state declared a minimum price, that was the price charged. Costs increased, the state—for whatever reason—was not prepared to increase prices and the quality of provision

fell. In those circumstances, unless county councils were prepared to assist—which is what happened in the maintained rest homes sector—prices increased and were further subsidised by the maintained sector. I suggest that exactly the same thing will occur in the child care sector as a result of the child care tax credit. Prices will increase, as will the cost to the taxpayer.
Another reason why the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit will be so expensive—I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead on precisely this point—is that people will organise their affairs to maximise their income. That is why a poverty trap exists. People will say, "I cannot afford to go back to work because I get more benefit when I am out of work." I am not saying that that is right, but those people are making a clear economic statement. They will organise their child care and working patterns to maximise that tax credit. That means that the £1.5 billion that the Government dream will be the cost of the measure will increase certainly to about £7 billion and potentially to as much as £15 billion. That is an increase of 8p in the pound in the basic rate of income tax.
That leads me to tomorrow's Budget, with which I have potential problems. The Chancellor has already said that he plans to tax child benefit. If he does, he will undermine the basic right of individuals to have control of their tax affairs. I lobbied on that issue throughout the 1970s and 1980s until, in reply to my speech at the Conservative party conference, Nigel Lawson said that women would get independent taxation. If the Chancellor introduces the taxation of child benefit, he will fatally undermine that principle because he will be insisting that couples share their tax information, and confidentiality is one of the basic principles of independent taxation.
The Chancellor will not only penalise a family with one earner who pays 40 per cent. tax, while another family with two earners who do not pay 40 per cent. tax have a combined income that is higher than that of the first family, but he will break the basic principle of independent taxation. I am sure that the Government would not want that accusation made against them because the scales would suddenly fall from the eyes of the legions of women who campaigned, lobbied, wrote and sat in the Gallery, day after day, in their fight for independent taxation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. Lait: There are many more matters about which I am angry, but I promise that I shall not take up much more time.
I want now to address a subject that does not speak its name—what we should do about young boys who are alienated from society. I raised the subject in this debate four or five years ago, and I hate to be repetitive, but nothing is being done. I should prefer us to spend an Adjournment debate discussing young lads and their problems rather than women, whom we discuss year after year, and about whom we say the same things again and again.
There is a problem that needs to be tackled: women do not want some chaps as fathers because they are useless— in every respect except one—and our education and parenting systems are the cause. We must somehow deal with unskilled young lads who cannot contribute to


society and who feel rejected. Nothing that the Government have done so far has addressed that issue. The emphasis on mainstreaming through education is further alienating those lads. More and more of them are excluded from school. Those who are in school refuse to learn. They do not benefit from any measures that have been taken.
We must address those concerns because if we do not create a society in which men feel responsible for a family, we will reinforce the huge problems experienced by lone parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead pointed out the sheer costs and difficulties of trying to get single mothers back into work. We are excluding and alienating those young lads from work because they need to be educated to get a decent job, and unskilled jobs have gone. As we know, they are more prone to criminality and to perpetrating acts of violence against women.
We must, as a society, tackle the problems of those alienated young men. I hope that on international women's day next year, the Government will have the guts to hold an Adjournment debate on that subject, not women yet again.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: I, for one, am absolutely delighted to participate in a debate about women to celebrate international women's day.
I am also very proud to be the chair of the parliamentary Labour party Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and in that capacity, I pay tribute to the leading role played by women in the peace movement over the years. Many women who are now in this place established their political credentials through involvement with the peace camp at Greenham Common and in the wider peace movement. Many of them continue to put forward arguments for peace and disarmament in this place whenever possible.
We are well assisted by the many campaigners outside Parliament who continue to focus on arguments against Trident and the non-accountable nature of US spy stations such as Menwith Hill, which is not far from my constituency. The women at the Menwith Hill peace camp have for many years bravely questioned the reason for the existence of the US base, its legality and precisely what goes on there. Helen John, Lindis Percy and Anne Lee are among many women who have continued to oppose the existence and expansion of the base. In the early days, when the existence of the station became known, many of us attended picnics—rallies—in the adjacent fields, where we had excellent speakers such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The picnics have ended, but the arguments continue.
As a member of the Council of Europe committee on equal opportunities for women and men, I have recently been involved in a report on the equal representation of women and men in the Parliaments of the 40 member countries. In a table demonstrating the representation of women in Parliaments, the UK is 12th, Sweden is at the top and Turkey is at the bottom. Albania did not get its act together so we did not receive figures for its Parliament. Should the House need reminding,

this Chamber has at present 659 MPs, of whom 121, or 18.4 per cent., are women, and 101 of them are Labour Members. Our position on the list would have been much higher if it had not been for the overwhelming preponderance of men among hereditary peers. Perhaps next year, our position on the list will have improved.
Parliamentary selections will be made by all parties in the next year, and I am not particularly hopeful that the representation of women will be addressed by any party, including my own. Three years ago, when two male no-hopers took three constituency Labour parties, including my own, to an industrial tribunal, I felt confident that the chair would throw out the case because a prospective parliamentary candidate could in no way be described as an employee of a party. There is no wage, no contract of employment and no employer-employee relationship.
Those men would have had no chance of selection, whichever party they had applied to and whatever the shortlist. They would probably not even have made it on to an all-male shortlist, yet the tribunal chair accepted their complaint and the tribunal—amazingly, in my view—decided in the plaintiffs' favour. That decision still stands and therefore, sadly, no party can safely use an all-women shortlist as a vehicle, no matter how imperfect, to move towards equality of representation in Parliament.
The Council of Europe equal opportunities committee suggests that member states introduce a quota system— although that would be effective only where the very undemocratic system of lists operates. There are other carrot-and-stick approaches to encourage political parties to move toward the nomination of equal numbers of men and women in winnable seats too; but without constituency parties being able to opt for all-women short lists, such good intentions may result in little improvement. In fact, unless changes are made, there may be a reduction in the number of women Members of Parliament following the next election.
The Council of Europe equal opportunities committee has also been considering in detail the issue of violence against women. Last week, we decided to hold a press conference to coincide with international women's day. The committee's unanimously adopted declaration on zero tolerance of violence against women and girls reads as follows:
Gender violence is a fundamental violation of the right to life, to liberty and security, to personal, mental and physical integrity, equal protection before the law, equality within the family as well as the right not to be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Violence against women is both a serious obstacle to the achievement of women's equality, and the outcome of the inequality which persists throughout Europe. The most important way to fight violence against women consequently is the fight for equal rights and opportunities for women.
We therefore call for equality being one of the issues covered by monitoring compliance with the obligations of Council of Europe member States.
I shall finally mention just a few of the Government's measures which will help women. The £40 billion extra for health and education will certainly be greatly welcomed by women with small children who, more than most, must visit their doctor. They will see improvements. The money will also be welcomed by many older women, who also have to use their doctors a great deal more than the average person.
There is a commitment to promote family-friendly initiatives through, among other things, the "Fairness at Work" White Paper and implementation of the working time, part-time work and parental leave directives. Anything that makes life easier for women who work and have small children will be of help. There are many stresses and strains on such women. When they are at work, they feel guilty about not being with their children, and when they are with their children, they feel guilty about not being at work. Anything that helps them in any direction should be welcomed. I certainly welcome such measures.
I welcome the new deal for lone parents, to help them move from welfare to work, provided that the final decision on whether a young mother with small children goes to work is the mother's alone. She should not feel pushed into going back to work. I am very much in favour of the introduction of a national minimum wage, too. It will be very popular in Keighley, which is traditionally a very low-wage area. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) described the policy as one of the Barbie doll proposals or strategies. If that is so, many women on very poor wages in Keighley will say, "Long live Barbie."
There has been much argument about playgroups. The national minimum wage will provide working women with enough money to pay a playgroup an economic rate, which will in turn enable the playgroup to pay those whom it employs an economic and reasonable wage. Even the Conservative party cannot knock increases in child benefit and income-related benefits to help families with children—although I am sure that it will try. As a grandmother with five—going on six—small grandchildren, I can speak with authority on the first ever national child care strategy. Readily available and reasonably priced good quality child care is the greatest enabler of all for women. I for one welcome the measure with very great enthusiasm.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Here we are debating the Government's priorities for women, and progress—or lack of it—in delivering on them. In welcoming the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) to her post—this is my first opportunity to do so—I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who eloquently set out the position of Conservative Members. I want to separate the fact from the fiction in this debate. I shall draw attention to the Government's ultimate failure to set priorities for women, and accuse them of being hopelessly remiss in delivering for women.
I am mildly surprised that no reference has been made to the United Nations action programme for women. My researchers pulled a three-page document from the internet on the programme, which I had imagined would be the core of this debate. It raises real issues for women, not just in this country but throughout the world. As we celebrate international women's day, the programme raises issues such as the contribution of women to all aspects of society, equal opportunities for women, the role of women in developing countries, and Government funding to enable women to perform such a role.
In the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), I should like to refer to the number of women on the Government Benches. The Minister for

Public Health said that all-women lists for parliamentary selection at the general election were not deemed to be in breach of any rules. But as the hon. Member for Keighley said, when the matter was taken to an industrial tribunal, such lists were found to be clearly in breach of the treaty of Rome and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which implemented its provisions. As a result, the Labour party stopped selection from all-women lists.
I should like to share with Labour Members, especially the Minister, the following thought: the Government must learn—I am sure that they will not mind taking lectures from Opposition Members in this regard—that there must be genuinely equal opportunities for men and women. I am wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the fact that I and the other 13 women who represent the Conservative party in this House were selected on merit, and not simply to fulfil the gender quota.
I pay tribute to the previous Government, and especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) for his contribution as Prime Minister to delivering positive policies for women. He introduced and endorsed Opportunity 2000, which has put more women into public life and indirectly resulted in greater numbers of women in the professions, the boardrooms and other walks of life from which politics can draw. More work opportunities for women arise today as a result of the previous Government's commitment to flexible labour markets. As of April 1997, there were 12.3 million women in the work force. By comparison, this Government have failed miserably to deliver positive policies for women.
The Minister for Public Health referred to every stage of a woman's life, from girlhood to womanhood, as well as to those who care for elderly relatives. This Government have failed at every such stage. Women whose aspirations were raised before the election have been let down. To illustrate that point, I shall start with the example of nursery education. Nursery education vouchers were introduced nationwide in April 1997, and would have resulted in the provision of free nursery education for every four-year-old. Many mothers want the provision of such pre-school education, which gives them the opportunity to work. On being elected in May 1997, the Labour Government immediately abolished that scheme.
Equally, it was recognised that the minimum wage for au pairs would have a devastating effect on women returning to work. I understand—perhaps the Minister will put my mind at rest on this score when she winds up the debate—that that category has now been excluded under Government provisions for the minimum wage, first, because it would have led to fewer au pairs working, and secondly, because, as a result, fewer mothers would have entered the workplace.
There are probably more women teachers than men teachers; certainly there are more women heads than men heads. In North Yorkshire, and especially in the Vale of York, teachers and heads have been extremely disappointed by this year's poor standard spending assessment for north Yorkshire. Teachers are being promised a pay increase, but the Government have committed no new money to pay for it. Moreover, the Government are committed to cutting class sizes to 30, yet they have committed no new money to achieving that aim.
The Government are going even further, saying that they wish to introduce performance-related pay for teachers in two years' time without considering how that is to be achieved or the administrative burden that the achievement of that aim will impose on teachers and heads. Many of those teachers and many of those heads will be women.
The Minister with responsibility for women's issues briefly mentioned the plight of teenage girls, and especially the increasing number of teenage pregnancies. That is now an extremely pressing problem, in view of the number of teenage girls falling pregnant, many of whom are applying to take the morning-after pill before a pregnancy has been diagnosed, or—in the long term— applying to go on the contraceptive pill. However, the Minister made no mention of the higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers. That is an especially worrying development for young teenagers, especially girls, because as they develop and, hopefully, marry, it could have a very negative effect on their fertility and ability to give birth.
I am concerned that intrusive, old-fashioned socialist policies such as the minimum wage and maternity or paternity leave will lead to higher unemployment among women. It is believed that the working time directive and the constraints imposed by it will hit working women hardest.
I shall now discuss those choosing not to work but to stay at home to bring up children or to care for sick or elderly relatives. It has been found that the tax situation imposed by the Government is severely disadvantaging women who choose to stay at home. The only beneficiaries, under the present tax law, are couples living together and choosing not to marry, or one-parent families. That is hardly an incentive to working mothers, or carers choosing to stay at home.
I should like to discuss the equal opportunities provisions under the treaty of Rome and the implementing regulations, especially in relation to woman returners to work. That is a special category which has been recognised, especially under objective 3 training funds. There have been qualifying programmes for women such as "New Opportunities for Women"—the NOW programme. I understand that, in all probability, that programme will lapse under the Agenda 2000 reforms.
I leave the Minister with the following question. What provisions will replace those schemes, enabling woman returners to work to undertake courses to boost their chances of taking up employment, especially after leaving employment to bring up young people—their children— and to ensure that there will be new provision either under a Government programme or a future European programme?
The enduring message that I shall be left with at the end of tonight's debate is that the Government are now adopting Conservative language. They are "seeing women as mainstream" in life and they have adopted a programme of listening to women. Obviously we have coined a phrase with our Listening to Britain campaign, in which we addressed 52 per cent. of the electorate and 45 per cent. of the work force, namely women.
The Labour party's rhetoric has changed. In opposition, it claimed to want to do something to help women; now, in government, it supports the Conservative rhetoric of

developing a strategy to make women feel mainstream in society, not a hived-off special category. However, in my view the Government have consistently discriminated against women.
The Government have failed women and disappointed their aspirations—raised before the most recent general election—most in relation to family credit, which is now being paid to the mother. Family credit has been paid through the benefits system to the mother; the working families tax credit will be distributed through the tax system, and in the majority of low-income households the father, as the sole wage earner, will receive that benefit. The money will therefore be paid to him through his pay packet, and the wife and children will lose out, because scientific evidence proves that money given to the father is less likely to be spent on child care. That is a fundamental point, which the Government have failed to address and on which they have failed to deliver for women.
Incapacity benefit is changing, and is now to be available only to those who paid national insurance contributions in only one of the past two tax years—not the past five or six tax years. That will hit women especially hard, and the majority of those penalised will be those with young children who become ill, or carers for elderly relatives.
Finally, bereavement pensions—the new bereavement benefit—will be cut off after only six months for those without dependent children. It is important that we, the Conservatives, take the message to those who will lose out after six months and will no longer receive a bereavement pension until retirement age, as they currently do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead pointed out, 250,000 women will lose out in that category alone.
I conclude that the Government have failed to deliver for women on a catalogue of areas and policies, and that they can hardly be welcomed as having introduced woman-friendly policies.

Barbara Follett: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on the last international women's day of the 20th century. This has been the century of women, just as the 15th was the century of exploration and the 18th the century of industrial revolution. In this century, the revolution has been in women's lives. A hundred years ago there were no women engineers, no women professors, no women managing directors or women MPs, let alone women Speakers, Chief Whips or Leaders of the House. A hundred years ago, women did not even have the vote. Then, as now, there were many talented and entrepreneurial women, but their abilities were wasted and their ambitions stifled by a seemingly monolithic social order.
Women today still have a number of glass ceilings to break, including that of leader of the Liberal Democrat party; 100 years ago they were still on the floor. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) said, women's lives have changed beyond recognition. I know that she, like me, is proud that the Labour party, which came into being with the century, has played its part in ensuring that those changes are reflected in the laws of our land.
It was the 1945 Labour Government—who, like the 1997 Labour Government, contained a record number of women—who brought in the maternity allowance in the


Beveridge reforms of 1948. It was the 1974 Labour Government who made formal provision for maternity leave in their Employment Protection Act 1975. In 1997, it is the Labour Government who are increasing that maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks and introducing— for the first time in our country—the right to parental leave and time off for family emergencies.
Those new provisions recognise the importance of women in the workplace and the importance of men in the family—better for women and much better for us all. Men—not just retiring Conservative Members—need to spend more time with their families. Research into underperforming boys has shown that the root of the problem is the boys' unwillingness to learn to read because they consider reading too girlie—too unmanly. That is because they are generally read to by their mothers or by their primary school teachers, who on the whole are women. Almost never are they read to by their fathers or by other men. They rarely see men or their fathers reading anything at all except newspapers. Families definitely need fathers and I am proud to be serving on a Committee that is considering a Bill that translates recognition of that fact into law.
We have heard today about how the Government are delivering for women in this country and for women in developing countries throughout the world. The minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the sure start programme and the national child care strategy have all been mentioned. With my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), I am pleased to say how much the national child care strategy means to me personally as a mother of three and a grandmother of two. I was one of those women who in the early 1980s sent a son to school even though he did not look very well because I needed desperately to keep my job. I was called to the school later in the day, and a day later he was diagnosed as having meningitis. He hung between life and death for two days. Fortunately, he is now a man of 23. If he had died, I do not think that I could ever have forgiven myself. We put women in that position every day of their lives in this country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) so tellingly recounted, the numbers of women elected to the House in the past 80 years have been pitifully small. It was not until 1983 that the number of women in the House exceeded 5 per cent. of the total membership. When Parliament was dissolved in April 1997, that percentage had risen by four, to 9 per cent. On 1 May 1997, it doubled to 18 per cent. Meanwhile the number of women on the Conservative Benches fell from 18 to 13. It was only after the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) came to the House after a by-election that the number rose to 14. Only three Liberal Democrat women Members and two women Scottish Nationalist Members were returned. It is clear that it was the 101 Labour women who made the difference.
In opposition, the Labour party made a huge effort to ensure that women were selected in seats which they had a chance of winning. I find it unbelievable that Opposition Members cannot accept that on both sides of the House we have had hundreds of years of men-only shortlists, which owed much more to Buggin's turn than to merit; few of us have acknowledged that today. I applaud the efforts that the Labour party made to overcome Buggin's turn. I am glad to see that in government we are

committed to righting this democratic deficit, not merely to promote equality but to promote women's participation in the political process.
Women throughout the country, especially outside the House but including some of us inside it, find the way in which we debate the issues that we care about—the economy, education and the health service—demeaning. They feel that it involves a lot of shouting but little doing. If we really want to involve more people, including women, in the political process, we shall have to reform it. I am delighted that the Government have made a start. I am glad to say that the new Assemblies in Scotland and Wales will be horseshoe-shaped and will work far more family-friendly hours than we currently enjoy.
Although the same cannot be said for the reformed House of Lords, I am confident that the current number of women in that place—7 per cent. of the total membership—will rise. It is the upper Chamber which keeps the British Parliament so low in the league table of women's representation. Yes, we are above France, but the French are so desperate that they are thinking of amending their constitution to ensure that the law encourages women to participate in public life. However, we are below countries such as Kuwait and Korea, which are not known for their women-friendly policies. The Labour party is committed to encourage the principle of a 50:50 ratio of women and men in public appointments. The number of women appointed to public posts has risen by 7 per cent. in the 20 months that we have been in office.
We do and will select on merit. As the century draws to a close, I look forward to the next, which I hope will be the century of partnership between the Government and the people and between men and women. Only in that way can we guarantee a better future for us all.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) said how much she welcomes the 101 women Labour Members who have entered the House following the general election, which she informed us had made the difference in this place. I find it difficult to understand what the difference has been as a result of additional female talent coming into this place. There have been occasions when women Labour Members have all sat on their hands, robotic-like, not even being prepared to support one of their colleagues. I remember witnessing the slaughter of the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who was attacked for her policies that were altering the legislation applying to women, which I thought had been reasonably well thought out. Hardly one of the women Labour Members would do a thing to support the right hon. Lady on the occasions when she sat in her place as lonely as a cloud.
There is no point in looking at the width; it is the quality that matters. If women are to justify their increased numbers in this place, they must try to decide what issues really matter in improving the position of women in our society and then to do something about them. For example, if Labour women Members were collectively to go and sort out the Lord Chancellor on matters such as


the number of women judges, I am sure that they could frighten him to death. If that were to happen, we might see some more women judges appointed.

Ms Blears: Would the hon. Lady like to tell us what she achieved, as a supporter of the Conservative Government for 18 years, to increase the number of women in public life?

Mrs. Gorman: I do not think that that is the point. However, with my colleagues I went and sorted out our own Lord Chancellor. We persuaded him to introduce several changes in legislation bearing on children and matters relating to cohabitation, for example. On those occasions we had an impact. There is no point in calling for more women in the House unless those women will act independently, individually and in support of the issues that they claim are still waiting to be sorted out.
Women want much the same as men want. They want more opportunities, a better standard of living and more independence for themselves. To put it crudely, they want to be better off. The Conservative free-market, free-enterprise policies have introduced a vast new range of industries and opportunities, which have given women the opportunity that they now have, for example, to own motor cars, albeit that they block the roads when collecting their children from school. It is an opportunity that they did not have before. I recall the old, stale Labour policies of keeping alive out-of-date heavy industries which were enormously subsidised. They gobbled up public funds to sustain jobs that were long out of date. Conservative changes over the past 20 years have transformed the free market and made it possible for women to gain opportunities.

Lorna Fitzsimons: If the hon. Lady is saying that greater financial independence has given women the ability to have their own motor car, I expect her to join me in welcoming the increase in women's incomes as a result of the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit.

Mrs. Gorman: I think that both measures are extremely misguided. Once women have taken time out of work and need to get back in it, they usually need the opportunity to get back on the ladder. If we load the employment of women with extraneous costs, of which the minimum wage is sometimes one, but not always, we will encumber women and make employment much more difficult. In making that remark I quote not a rabid right-wing Conservative like myself, but Carmen Callil, who is a well-known supporter of the Labour party and an extremely successful publisher. I believe that recently she was running HarperCollins, one of our major publishers. She said that trying to employ women, as she does—many book editors are women, and it is predominantly a woman's profession—is a nightmare. If a woman is doing a job that is exclusive to that individual and she needs to take time off—there is the old cry about maternity leave—it becomes impossibly difficult to offer such opportunities to other women. I do not believe for one moment that the policy that the Labour party is pursuing on the matter will help women one little bit. It will make small firms in particular, where there is

a limited choice of staff, less likely to take a woman on. In that respect, Labour's legislation is extremely backward-looking.

Ms Moran: One of the effects of the flexible labour market which the hon. Lady so eloquently espouses has been the fact that more women work for lower pay and longer hours. For example, one in four women works more than 40 hours a week. Does she believe that that is an improvement in the quality of life for women and, more particularly, for their children?

Mrs. Gorman: The woman's individual circumstances are paramount. I do not know why an individual woman may be in a particular job. I do know, however, that as most women in their middle years, especially if they have a family, take relatively unskilled work because they do not have the time to devote to a more highly skilled job or even to a higher level of training, they tend to be in the lower-paid percentiles.
The Labour party does women no favours by constantly referring to them as victimised and badly paid. That simply is not true. In the past week I have met women bank managers, women managers of large hotels, a woman who runs one of the largest transport companies in the country, a woman who runs one of the largest Ford car dealerships in the country, women doctors and dentists, and women who work in the stock exchange.
There are many rapidly rising women in Britain. That is largely because of the education reforms that were introduced during the last period of Conservative government, which have made it much easier for women to undertake higher education. The mere fact that their families could afford to support them in that speaks highly of the legislation introduced and implemented over the past 20 years.
It is foolish for Labour to suggest that women have made no progress over that time. They have come from nowhere during my lifetime. Earlier, someone of my age and as intelligent, bright and in every way as attractive to the employment market as I am was unable to find a university place. Less than two in 10 people went to university and of those, the percentage of women was minimal. That position persisted almost until the mid-1980s, when Conservative education policies altered it.
The Labour party does no credit to women by constantly harping on the notion that we are all victims and underdogs and are being ground down by evil employers. That is silly. If a woman does not like her occupation, and if the pay is so poor, under our welfare system she almost has the option of staying at home and not bothering to go out to work at all. I deplore that, but it is a fact of life. Under welfare legislation, a great many women are assisted.

Ms Moran: rose—

Mrs. Gorman: No, I have given way to the hon. Lady once, and I am sure that many other hon. Members want to speak.
There is a further issue to which the Labour party should turn its mind. One the most significant developments in the progress of women in a relatively short time has been the ability to control the size of their


families. Legislation has brought that about, but we still have a serious problem of young women becoming pregnant when they are not old enough or mature enough to raise children. That is detrimental to the children, although I know that many of the young mothers do a wonderful job.
We spend most of our time condemning girls for getting themselves into that situation. We talk about giving young women more assistance in such matters and allowing them so-called emergency contraception if they face an unwanted pregnancy. I suggest to Labour women Members, as there are 101 of them, that if they insisted on that—if they went to see the Secretary of State for Health and told him that that should be made easier for women—they could achieve something, but they do not try. They sit on their hands.
As a result, we read newspaper articles such a cutting that I have, which states that hospitals are refusing such assistance to young women who, not knowing where else to turn, go along to the hospital accident and emergency department. Perhaps hon. Members will tell me whether a delegation of Labour women Members has been to see the Secretary of State for Health, to ask what he is doing about the matter.
It is extremely important that young women should be given better information. It is still the case that a woman who decides that she cannot go through with a pregnancy, and wishes to have it terminated, must beg two doctors, and must humiliate herself and often lie, in order to get that assistance—a process that is often dragged out until the middle or even late stages of the pregnancy, when it could have been dealt with earlier. A reform of that situation would give dignity to women's lives and remove some of the carping and criticism from the subject of birth control and abortion.
What have Labour women done? They have a marvellous opportunity to make progress. Bringing into women's lives dignity and control over their fertility would advance the cause of women by giving them control over the way in which their lives progress. I have given two examples of the way in which Labour Members could have done something for women, but have not done so.
Many young women have low expectations. Like many other hon. Members, I taught. It is a great shame that so many girls come from homes where they do not see much future for themselves, even now. I challenge the women on the Labour Benches to tell us what they are doing to raise the expectations of those young women, so that they do not think that the first thing to do, as soon as they are old enough, is to have a baby and live unhappily—or rather, meanly—ever after, trying to raise that child, possibly on their own, or even sink into thinking that they may as well have two or three babies while they are at it, because at least that brings in a little more social security. What sort of ambition in life is that for a young woman?
Although standards have improved enormously, educational opportunities have been opened up by a Conservative Government, and at the top end a huge number of women have benefited from that, we still have a long way to go. In their term of office, which I naturally hope will be short, Labour women Members can start the ball rolling and show us what they are made of, so that when they leave office they can claim to have contributed to women's progress.
I shall deal briefly with the informal networks that women often set up to help themselves. The playschool movement is an excellent example. Women get together, they do not want a great deal of money out of it for themselves, they are doing something useful, and along comes the heavy hand of Government and clobbers them. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and I have corresponded extensively on the subject. She has given me to understand that there is a great dollop of money floating around out there on which such groups can call, but I have read the small print. That dollop of money is to be limited to areas of special need, which precludes many of the schools in my constituency.
Again, that is a challenge for Labour—not necessarily to find more money, but just to leave those women alone so that they can get on with improving their own lot. A similar case is that of women who look after their neighbour's children. Because of perhaps one or two bad cases that went national, all informal arrangements were stopped. Through the Children Act 1989, which otherwise had many good points, licensing was introduced, regulations came in, and the women's houses had to be specially adapted, with low toilets, prefabricated windows and goodness knows what else. Those initiatives were crushed, and women were denied the opportunity of relatively low-cost child care, which they could afford, which they could swap around and through which they could help each other out. We made that an illegal activity and I think that we will go down the same route with playschools, which I would deplore. I challenge the women on the Labour Benches to do something about that because they tell us that they are here to improve the lot of women.
I want to say a word on behalf of older women, who are much underrated and undervalued in this country. Many women prefer to work part-time for relatively modest pay because of their life pattern when they are raising their children, although the policies that the Labour party is introducing will probably squeeze a lot of them out of that market and they will be even worse off than they were before.
I challenge the women on the Labour Benches to think about how more mature women can be helped to become Members of the House. One method, which I have mentioned in the House on more than one occasion, is their health care. In particular, we should think seriously about doing a great deal more to make older women aware that their health can be enormously improved in many ways. I will not go on about hormone replacement, but that is a significant element. For the record, I am told that my skeleton is equivalent to that of a 15-year-old. It will last me, even if I last for a century or more.
I emphasise that there are still elements of health care that make older women less interested in going back into the workplace, even though they probably have 30 years of useful life left, and we should not forget that the average age of mortality for women is their mid-80s. The chaps have still to catch up.
What should we do to make use of mature women? We often read of terrible abuse cases involving children in institutions. Many women have had massive and explicit experience of judging people's characters and weighing up the pros and cons of what is going on in a household. They could make a better fist of that type of work than many councils, who make a mess of it—not


least Islington council, on which the Minister sat and whose record on child care and abuse in the homes that it controlled was deplorable.
The issue of how to get more women elected to the House has been raised and we have heard the old saw that we should get here on merit. Well, we all know that the men do not all get here on merit. They get here by pulling strings, phoning up the right person or pushing themselves forward.

Ms Ryan: Or by having the right wife.

Mrs. Gorman: Perhaps by having the right wife—that, too. We need women as Members of the House because half the population are women. Most of the legislation passed by the House these days concerns matters of primary interest to women, especially health, education and social welfare. We spend the majority of our budget on those issues—not on war and defence, as we did in the old days. Government was largely about defence and foreign affairs and, even today, the Chamber fills up with the chaps when we are talking about such things. However, that is not where the bulk of the Government's concern lies and we should have more women in the House for that reason.
On two occasions I have introduced Bills calling for an equal number of men and women Members to be achieved through dual lists, with constituencies voting for a man and for a woman. So far as I know, that idea originated with George Bernard Shaw and has been pushed for many years by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). In that respect, we would make progress if the women on the Labour Benches were genuinely interested in more women being elected to the House, not on a temporary basis, which is the basis on which many of the Labour women Members are here, but permanently. Although I share the interest in more women being elected to the House, I do not want them to be sent here artificially.

Jackie Ballard: Although a change was made in this House in 1997, is the hon. Lady aware that the legislatures with the highest proportion of women Members are in Scandinavian countries, which have a form of proportional voting? Would she support that form of voting to get more women into Parliament?

Mrs. Gorman: I do not want a half-baked system of proportional representation or women's lists, but change, once and for all. I want dual lists so that each constituency can choose a man and a woman—not doubling up on numbers, but twinning of candidates. I have presented such Bills to the House and hon. Members can read the technical details in Hansard.
I challenge the women on the Labour Benches to make a true impact on the ability of women to progress, without forgetting the fact that what happened under the previous Government provided the best role model that women have yet had in politics. We had the first woman Prime Minister, whose achievements were mammoth. She rescued this country from the doldrums of a socialist Government—there was a strike every other day of the week, which is only one example of something that she

cured—and brought this country to such a level of prosperity that the women on the Labour Benches have good jobs, women own cars and control industries. Their progress is rapid because of the legislation that the Conservative party introduced. Let us see what the women on the Labour Benches can achieve during their term in office.

Caroline Flint: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. In last year's debate I was the last Back-Bench speaker. I had three minutes, which I devoted to the important issue of domestic violence. That issue has been raised today and I hope to touch on it later.
It is important to say to people in the Gallery and those watching us on cable television that the debate has been initiated because this is international women's day. We are concentrating our minds and our ideas on the issues affecting women throughout the world. That is not to say that contributions on issues affecting women have not been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the year since we last celebrated international women's day—and I am sure that such contributions will continue to be made during the next 12 months.
Earlier in the debate, I was called "stupid" by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who has left the Chamber, although he gave notice that he would have to do so. I was making a point about child care and those who work in that field, which we all have to address. For too long, work involving care has been undervalued and given low status. Correspondingly, that has affected the premium at which the work done by such people is valued and, therefore, the rate at which they are paid.
This country is going through a transition in respect of addressing the needs of parents who require child care. I hope that, during that transition, we reassess the role of the people, predominantly women, who work with children, care for the elderly and work in other areas of care. It is about time that we put a premium on such care and recognised it. We should respect those workers and we should also hope to achieve the best quality of care for children or elderly people who are being looked after.
My satisfaction at being part of the new Labour Administration is that we have tackled a number of issues that predominantly affect women on low incomes. To sum up a proportion of the debate, if there was a general election tomorrow and, for some reason, the Conservative party won, we could be certain that it would get rid of the national minimum wage and part-time workers' rights, say no to statutory holidays and undermine the child care strategy that has been developed. That strategy has been welcomed by every child care organisation in which I have been involved. I was chair of a national child care organisation for four years before I became a Member of Parliament. All those policies would be undone by a Conservative Government.
There is still a barrier, especially in manual work. In certain professions, some of the institutionalised segregation has gone over the years, but in manual work there is still rigid segregation between men and women. I believe that that is why women still earn only 80 per cent. of the hourly pay of men, and 72 per cent. of their average weekly pay.
That economic picture leads me to the more fundamental relationship between family and work, for two reasons. We must ask ourselves why women end up


with all the part-time work, with broken working lives and low or non-existent pensions. That is due first to the distribution of family—and parental—responsibility, and secondly to an uneasy partnership between men and women.
I know that I can go out, pick up a magazine from the shelf of any newsagent and, probably, find examples of new men who are parenting, working from home and challenging traditional roles. Those, however, are merely crumbs of comfort. Perhaps there are more choices for middle-class, highly educated women. We should celebrate the fact that some women have broken into different fields, and that such women have more choices—they have financial independence, their own cars and can employ cleaners, hopefully paying at least the national minimum wage. That, however, is just a small segment of the wider picture. Women overwhelmingly perform the household organisation tasks; women overwhelmingly deal with schools and doctors; women take part-time work in order to balance employment with looking after their families.
We all want women to be able to make choices, but pre-set parameters ensure that economic choices favour men, while domestic responsibilities fall on women. That must be challenged. I have referred to an uneasy partnership. Reference has been made to domestic violence, and it is to the credit of all the women's organisations that formed the refuge movement that so much progress has been made in that regard. I am pleased, however, that we now have a Government who are finally producing a national strategy. Although domestic violence is known about, there is little evidence of its eradication from relationships between men and women.
I must now declare an interest I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. When considering local budgets, the Government must ensure that resources are available to support police stations containing domestic violence suites. Much work has been done over many years to provide a sensitive service in that regard, and we want the police to be able to continue to do the job well.
The uneasy partnership—as I term it—between men and women is partly a product of the sexual revolution. As a feminist, I can say that a fundamental tenet of the sexual revolution was women taking control of their own bodies. The personal became political: it was a case of "our bodies, ourselves". We can learn all the top sex tips from women's magazines, and wherever we look British society is more sexualised, but there are 10 times as many teenage pregnancies in the United Kingdom as there are in Holland, and many young mothers will become young grandmothers. As a feminist, I think we should address that.
The problem is not just young parenthood, but a high rate of failure to establish solid relationships, or even to get men to pay for their pound of flesh. As we enter the 21st century, there is still considerable evidence that men take and leave what they want from women—and the Child Support Agency has failed to scratch the surface. I say that although I have a good deal of case work from men who have been treated badly by the CSA when its administration has gone wrong. The number of such cases does not equal those of women who have been abandoned to look after their children alone, left in poverty by men who should take responsibility for fathering children.
Unfortunately, a large number of young women who are engaged in sexual activity—and that is the reality— have not mastered their own fertility or any control in their relationships. For me, the concept of "our bodies, ourselves" was a metaphor for the ability to control all aspects of one's life. By controlling when they became pregnant, women could control their working lives and education, influence their earning power and maximise their happiness by planning their families if and when they wanted them. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, there is a significant vulnerable group of young women. Disaffection at school among boys can manifest itself in low self-esteem, truancy and criminal activity, but among girls such low self-esteem often leads to early sexual relationships and pregnancy.
Members of that vulnerable group are becoming parents before their education is completed, without solid relationships, with poor parental support and facing a possible 10 years or more out of the labour market, dependent on benefits. Such women often become dependent on boy friends to provide occasional luxuries. They are likely to have more children in difficult circumstances, and, crucially, are likely to have daughters who follow the same pattern of young parenthood, low achievement and abusive relationships. There are a number of young women in such circumstances who try their best, are good mothers and go on to succeed; but the evidence shows that a large proportion are left alone and isolated. Certainly, the fact that there are grandparents of 30 and parents of 14—as there are in my constituency— represents not a triumph for feminism, but a challenge.

Mrs. Gorman: How does the hon. Lady view the Home Secretary's proposal that such young women should be required to live in hostels collectively, in what could be described as a return to the old workhouses, rather than being supported separately?

Caroline Flint: That is an interesting point. In my area, the foyer project is intended to encourage young people to take advantage of training, and to put a roof over their heads. In my experience, one of the problems for teenage mothers is isolation: isolation on run-down estates, and isolation from the resources and opportunities that could be available through training and health care. One way of tackling that is trying to bring together housing, health and education services so that young women have the opportunity to take advantage of them if they wish. It would be voluntary, but it should be offered to young women. There is a sure start initiative in part of my constituency, and I hope that we can look at the way in which resources are put together there to ensure that women have as much access to resources as they need.
If we want young women with children—especially lone parents—to exercise choices, we must ensure that we give them choices. I know that Members on both sides of the House, including Labour Members, have asked why it is necessary to pay someone else to look after a child when one can do it oneself. I think that we sometimes confuse freedom of choice with Hobson's choice. We confuse women who are deciders with women who are victims. These women have never been financially independent. Although we have raised child benefit to record levels, they need much more than that to escape from the poverty trap. Many may find a man to subsidise their lot in life, but I would sooner offer them new doors


that they can open to have real choices, with education, employment, child care, taxation and benefits working with them rather than against them. If they then enter new relationships with men, they will be able to do so on more equal terms.
As I have said, I am pleased that Denaby, in my constituency, is to be a trailblazer for the sure start initiative, which will target services on women with pre-school children. New money will be pumped in to support vulnerable families. It will not be top down; success will depend on allowing local partnerships to flourish. It is especially important to listen to what young women think about the matter. I shall quote the words of some young women who became pregnant when they were young and on their own. According to one:
The reality of looking after a baby 24 hours a day, 365 days a year is a far cry from the pretty clothes and the pictures that you see in magazines … To this day I still haven't understood why I wanted to have a baby so much. Sometimes I wonder if it was due to my upbringing, as I watched my father walk out of the door when I was about 6 years old and I am forever having arguments with my mother. I have considered the possibility that perhaps I wanted a baby to love in the way that I felt I had not been.
Such young women can also give advice on the support that needs to be given. Another of them said:
I find now that my friends come to me for advice and I feel that they don't get sex education in normal schools that we get here at the unit.
She was referring to a young parents unit. She continued:
Normal schools just tend to show you body parts and teach you how they work, and how you can conceive. They don't really teach you anything about feelings and they definitely don't teach you enough about parenthood … more sex education in schools would have been useful to me and that education about feelings is as important as knowledge about body parts.
We should involve such young women in the projects that we hope to fund and to support because, possibly more than any other group, they can act as good role models to younger girls.

Jackie Ballard: Does the hon. Lady agree that very few young women deliberately get pregnant to live a life of Riley on benefits, which was the impression that the previous Government used to give? It is more because of wanting someone to love, failures of contraception and lack of education. Once that has happened to them, to give them a meaningful choice of what to do with their lives they should have benefits at a level that enables them to stay at home and to bring up their children, if that is what they want, as well the option, to which the hon. Lady referred, of education and training opportunities to go into work, if that is what they want. Does she agree that, if they want to stay at home, the benefit levels need to be adequate so that they do not live in poverty with those children?

Caroline Flint: I am dealing with a 13-year-old who has given birth to a child. I am talking about young girls of 12, 13 or 14. The best thing to do is to give them support during their pregnancy. I hope that we can try to do something to raise their self-esteem, so that they do not enter relationships over which they have no control, and to give them support so that they can continue their education, both up to 16 and beyond.
Evidence shows that we should try to ensure that young girls of 13, 14 or 15 are aware of the health risks that are associated with early pregnancy, and there is also evidence showing the detrimental effect that it will have on their health in later years.
When I went to my young parents unit—I am pleased that Doncaster has one to sustain young women who want to continue their education and who may find that their school is not the best place to do that—I found that the emphasis was on continuing education. All the women to whom I spoke wanted to continue that post-16. Where we have a problem is that, having been given child care and support when those young women are under 16, and the education environment to support that, the child care is not there to back it up when they want to go on to a further education college or another educational establishment. As one of the workers said to me at the young parents unit, the tendency in that vacuum is to have another child, possibly in a relationship with someone else, so the problem gets worse and worse.
Given the choice, those young women want education and a chance to work and to support their children. I hope that the Government will attend to that and provide the necessary support for them to succeed. That is why the sure start project is so important. It is about not only choices, but empowering those young women to move beyond their circumstances, or relationships that fundamentally leave them powerless.
We will see further changes as women become a majority of the work force. I hope—on the basis more of optimism than experience—that technological change speeds up changes in the labour market, breaking down the traditional gender segregation. It has been predicted that, in 30 years, half of us will be doing jobs that have not even been invented. That suggests a dynamic in society the like of which most people have not experienced before. That being said, women still face difficulties. Women are continuing to gain ground in traditional no-go areas, be they representation in the armed forces or in the professionalisation of women's team sports, but men still run the armed forces, control our major sports and dominate in the political arena.
Representation of women is important. It is important that, in the House, we have women from all walks of life and backgrounds, but representation cannot be allowed to overshadow the need to deliver on outcomes for women. A total of 330 women Members alone will not mean equality. It is economic and social change in wider society that must be the barometer of women's progress.
The goals that have been outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment give us plenty to think about, campaign on and move forward with. At the heart of the issue is the need to address the relationship between men and women and its emotional and psychological make-up, which, in many ways, defines male and female genders, but can also make us prisoners.
I say that having three prisons in my constituency and having seen the good work at Hatfield young offenders institute, where young men, 60 per cent. of whom are parents, go on parenting courses and do work that is aimed at developing their communication skills. There is something to be said for men being feminised. I have no problems with saying that. We would have a less


violent society if people talked, rather than fought out issues. The Government should address the issue of the masculinity of boys at school and men in our society.
I am happy that women have managed to force their agenda into the mainstream—long may it continue—and that the Government are addressing the many concerns of women that were untouched by previous Administrations. I am proud to be here and to represent the whole of Don Valley, but I am also proud of the work and commitment of the many women in my constituency who make community life worth while and who support the initiatives on which the Government have set themselves an agenda.

Ms Joan Ryan: It is a great pleasure and an honour to be called on international women's day to speak in a debate on delivering priorities for women.
Clearly, there are still those who refuse to recognise the need to ensure that we deliver for women—who claim that all is well; that we do not need to do anything extra or special; and that women today can make it entirely on their own merits. The implication is that, as women form 51 per cent. of the population but do not figure in the numbers that they should in the professions, the House or anywhere else, we can only conclude that women do not have the ability: if they did, they would be there.
I found it distressing to hear the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) put that view, and do so forcefully. Clearly, he believed it. He is entirely wrong. If they hear that contribution, women will despair. I entirely reject that view.
It is as well to remember what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) said about the number of women who have been elected to the House: about half of all those who have ever been elected are Members now. That is interesting. Presumably, the hon. Member for Lichfield would still maintain that women have not been elected because they do not have the ability, and that we are not here on our merits.
I applaud the measures that the Labour party took to ensure that there was an enormous leap forward in the representation of women among Labour Members. Women Conservative Members should look closely at what happened to their numbers and what they might do to improve that situation.
Thank goodness we have a Labour Government who are not characterised by an approach which says that women do not need to be taken account of in any special sense. Women certainly have great strength, determination and motivation and have succeeded, but that is despite the barriers that they face. It is not true that women do not need to be concentrated on in the way that the Government are doing. It is the job of Government to work in partnership with others to remove the barriers.
It is because the Government acknowledge the need to deliver for women and to tackle the barriers that they face that they are making real progress in delivering for them. We have heard it many time: women make up 51 per cent. of the population. Any Government who deliver for women deliver not only for women, but for men, for communities and for society as a whole. We came into government to deliver for the many, not just the few. It is vital that we do so.
It was interesting listening to the contribution of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). She and the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley)—perhaps I am only being kind, but we have to be kind to our sisters—have seemed to be a little uncomfortable during this debate, for most of which they have been in the Chamber. Perhaps they are uncomfortable because the 18 years of Conservative Government were characterised by complacent sentiments such as these: women will make it on their own merit; there is no need to consider the world that women are forced to inhabit or the inequality that women suffer. Perhaps the right hon. and hon. Ladies believe that.
Opposition Front Benchers are uncomfortable because the Labour Government are delivering for women across the board. Although there is much more to do, the Government are making progress in leaps and bounds in delivering for women. Opposition Front Benchers may jump up and say, "No, you're not delivering for women," but their argument is unsustainable because, according to them, there is not a need to deliver for women. They are therefore in a difficult position. I should like to think that they are criticising the Government's fundamental policy changes to support women—so that women may play their full role in society—more as Conservatives than as women.
I am delighted that the Government have adopted the use of mainstreaming. I was also pleased to hear that there seems to be considerable support for mainstreaming among Opposition Members. It is vital that, in all policy areas—as a first thought, not as an afterthought—we meet women's wants and needs. There is no add-on sphere entitled "women's issues", because all issues are women's issues. Women's needs and wants must be dealt with—at the beginning, in the middle and in the outcome.
I should like to consider a few of the matters on which the Government have delivered substantially for women. We know that women make a crucial contribution to the economy, in their roles both as workers and as carers, and that the proportion of women in the labour force has been increasing. That trend is likely to continue. In Great Britain, more than 12 million women—just over half of all women—aged 16 and over are economically active. In 1977, however—as has already been said in the debate— the average weekly earnings of women in full-time employment was still only 72 to 73 per cent. of men's average weekly earnings.
In Enfield, in my own constituency and my own borough, women's earnings have often been among the lowest in London. I therefore face the issue on my own doorstep. As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said, although the number of women employed in many managerial professions has increased, women hold only 32 per cent. of managerial and administrative jobs, and fewer than 5 per cent. of company directors are women. Therefore, although I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—I was very interested to hear of her 15-year-old skeleton—I think that she will agree that the women and jobs she described do not accurately reflect the situation of the vast majority of working women. We have to deliver for the many, not the few.
Some 92 per cent. of all women in employment are employees, and only 7 per cent. of women are self-employed. In my own borough of Enfield, about 20 per cent. of men, but only 5.2 per cent. of women,


are self-employed. It is important that we should implement measures to encourage women into self-employment. I am therefore very pleased that the Government are supporting Opportunity 2000.
We have a long way to go before women both are treated equally and are able to compete equally. The Government are introducing policies to make the difference that we seek to achieve. As we have heard already today, the pay gap between men and women is still too great, primarily because many women work in part-time, low-status jobs—often because they have dependent children.
We have heard many speeches today, primarily from Labour Members, on the Government's action to improve women's pay, women's rights at work and women's access to quality affordable child care. The Government's action will make a significant difference in women's working lives, and in determining whether they are able initially to decide to work.
Opposition Members seem to have lost the plot a bit on the working families tax credit. They seem not to realise that the credit will not necessarily go from purse to wallet, and that there will be a choice in deciding to whom it is paid.
The national minimum wage will help over 1 million women. Unfortunately, Opposition Members have made it absolutely clear today that, should they ever again be elected to government, they would reverse the minimum wage.
We should emphasise that family-friendly employment policies are not only good for women but very good for men. Many working men also are fathers, and what is good for working mothers is good also for working fathers.
The Government's action on women's issues makes an impressive list. We have acted in providing better child care, which is vital in giving children the best start in life. The national child care strategy and the £540 million for sure start are not merely words, words, words, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead said, but action, implementation, resources, quality and monitoring. That is what matters; that is what we need; and that is what we are delivering.
The Government are also delivering the child care tax credit, and a 20 per cent. increase in child benefit.
If all those actions are insufficient, or mere drops in the ocean—which is what Opposition Front Benchers seemed to be arguing—why did the Conservatives not do more for women when they were in government, when they had ample opportunity to do so?
The majority of the poorest pensioners are women, and action to help them is extremely important. If one takes the time to speak to a range of women, one learns that it is not only women with small children who have difficulties. We shall have to address the concerns also of women in other age groups.
From April 1999—next month—income support will be uprated by the largest-ever amount, and the pilot schemes that have brought help automatically to the poorest pensioners will go nationwide. As has been said already today, the Government's plans for pension sharing on divorce will also help to narrow the pension gap between men and women. We should acknowledge those significant measures, which are very welcome.
I should like specifically to deal with cancer screening. I think that all hon. Members will appreciate how frightening cancer is, and that the guarantee that everyone with suspected cancer will be seen by a specialist within two weeks of an urgent referral by their general practitioner is most important. The action was long overdue and has been most reassuring and welcome to those who are in that position. Many women in my constituency have mentioned to me also the Government's provision of £10 million for breast cancer services.
I was very taken by what my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) said about domestic violence, and the fact that it is a human rights issue. I support that, as does the Enfield women's aid centre. A Government document is due out shortly.
Confidence is of great importance in women's safety. It is important that women feel safe and confident when they are out and about in the community, in parks and public places, going to and from work and using public transport. Women who fear for their safety can be restricted in going about their day-to-day business. Opposition Members smirk at the mention of joined-up thinking, but the measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the integrated transport White Paper are important. We are taking action on issues on which women need to feel safe. Those important measures cannot be achieved without cross-departmental working and joined-up thinking, however much some may smirk at the notion.
I have been impressed this year and last year with the number of events held in my constituency around international women's day to raise awareness of the women's groups and organisations in Enfield that support, care for, encourage, motivate and enthuse local women. I should like to mention in particular the Enfield women's centre and its work with the new horizons 50-plus group, Enfield women's aid and the Enfield and Freezywater townswomen's guild.
Finally, I should like to mention two women in my constituency. At this time of year, we hear a lot about the origins of international women's day and the struggle for votes for women. We look back with gratitude and thanks to women such as Emmeline Pankhurst, but we should also remember the unsung heroes of our communities. Molly Sutton, a pensioner, is a community school governor and a member of the Co-operative party and the Labour party. However, this is not a partisan issue. She spends many hours encouraging, supporting and motivating other women to fulfil their potential. We are grateful to her. Doris Nulty, also a pensioner, runs a pensioners' luncheon club with great vigour and energy, providing a lifeline to many elderly women in my constituency. I pay tribute to those unsung heroes—or heroines, perhaps I should say; so much for sexist language—who work day in, day out, week in, week out, year after year, often without being mentioned. It is important to acknowledge the work of the millions of ordinary women who contribute so much to our communities, to their families and to society.

Ms Julie Morgan: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate on international women's day, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I should like to speak about the position in politics and society of women in Wales. Women have always been under-represented in politics in Wales. Of the 40


Members of Parliament from Wales, only four are women—although Labour has four more than any of the Opposition parties. There have only ever been seven women Members of Parliament from Wales. Before the election, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) was the only female Member of Parliament from Wales.
We also have few women councillors in Wales. A recent research paper by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) showed that Wales has the worst record in the UK for the number of women councillors. Again, the majority of them are Labour. Only 27 per cent. of councillors in the UK are women and Wales is bottom of the league, with only 20 per cent. Of the 10 councils with the lowest percentage of women, five are Welsh. Anglesey and Blaenau Gwent have the worst representation of women in the United Kingdom. My local council in Cardiff has the highest percentage of women councillors—35 per cent. From what I know of the women who are coming through to be candidates, it looks as though there will not be much of an increase at the coming elections in May.
Dealing with the under-representation of women on local authorities is a huge task for all political parties. Local authorities deal with bread-and-butter issues. It is sad that such issues are decided by people who represent only 50 per cent. of the population. That is particularly important given that women are so active in other areas, such as school governing bodies and voluntary groups. In Wales, women more or less run the voluntary sector, but they have not taken enough places on local authorities.
The National Assembly for Wales will be elected on 6 May, and half the Labour candidates will be women. That was not an easy achievement, bearing in mind the traditions of the Welsh political parties, where men have totally run the show. Despite the natural problems caused by the introduction of the twinning procedure—there has been concern about constituency autonomy—we now have 30 women and 30 men in place. Many of those women would not have been candidates if we had not had that arrangement. The Labour party should be proud that we have an equal number of men and women standing as candidates. I am sure that the presence of those women will make the National Assembly a very different place from this House.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said, we hope that power will be shared, and that women will not have to operate like men to achieve power. In Wales, an exciting time is ahead, with a unique body—perhaps the first in the world with an equal number of men and women. If Labour wins every seat, there will be an equal number of men and women.
In Wales, women are under-represented in many positions. When the unitary authorities were created in Wales, the only two chief executives appointed who were women were in those local authorities which followed the equal opportunities guidelines recommended by the Local Government Association. That produced two women chief executives out of 40 in the unitary authorities. Generally, women lost out in the unitary authorities, and we have few women in senior positions.
Outside Wales, the popular image of the Welsh woman fluctuates between the idea of the traditional woman in a tall, black hat and shawl—the traditional costume—and

the image of the Welsh "mam"; the home maker, and the indomitable figure, holding the Welsh family together in bad times and good. In Wales, when we talk about opportunities for women outside the home, we should never play down the role that women have played as home makers.
Women's lives in Wales have been hard and, for some, they still are. "Struggle or Strive"—a book describing the lives of women in the south Wales valleys between the two world wars—draws attention to the constant struggle of women to keep their homes, backyards and pavements spotlessly clean. I can remember my own grandmother struggling to keep the house and the backyard clean despite the constant dirt and dust that was coming in from the pits. Miners were working a seven-hour day, but their wives' working day was nearer 17 hours.
Women's work was as well regulated as men's: washing on a Monday; ironing and cleaning on a Tuesday; baking and shopping on a Wednesday; cleaning the upstairs on a Thursday—it was a full-time task. The book tells us that "tidy" was the most important word in "mam's" vocabulary. To be tidy—or "decha" in colloquial Welsh—was to be decent and respectable, and despite the grinding poverty that existed in those valleys, there was many a tidy woman. We should recognise the enormous contribution made to society by women who have worked in the home for many years, and still do.
Most of the mines in Wales have closed now, and women are employed outside the home in smaller numbers than in England, and for less pay. However, there has been a big shift in working patterns in Wales— particularly following the end of the heavy industries. We must continue to develop and deliver policies in Wales that will enable women to take their place in the new Wales.
We are starting to do that in many different areas, two of which are child care and health. A 1996 survey by Chwarae Teg—an organisation promoting equal opportunities in the workplace—showed that 80 per cent. of women in Wales found it difficult to work because of the lack of child care.
The Government launched the Welsh child care strategy last year. For the first time, a Government have seriously taken on board the importance of child care, both to allow parents to be economically active or to train, and for the good of the children. All research shows that it is good for children to go to nurseries and mix and socialise.
It will be up to the National Assembly to ensure that the strategy is developed to suit the individual needs of Wales. There is a thriving Welsh language playgroup movement, which we have tried to protect this year and will continue to protect next year.
We must also consider the needs of rural areas and the particular problems of acute areas of deprivation. Some parts of Wales will never have thriving nurseries, playgroups or after-school facilities unless a permanent subsidy is built in, because the deprivation is too great to rely on one, two or even three-year funding. We need affordable and sustainable provision, and I call on the Assembly, when it starts in two months' time, to continue to invest in child care and to develop the strategy to suit the needs of Wales.
Health is tremendously important for women, with breast and ovarian cancer being an abiding concern. The most recent reliable age-standardised figures for the


incidence of breast cancer date from 1992, when the rate for England and Wales together was 107.4 per 100,000, but the rate for Wales alone was significantly higher, at 125.8 per 100,000. That higher incidence is being tackled by the additional funding for breast cancer that the Government have granted and by Breast Test Wales, a regional screening service of very high quality that operates outside the hospital system and delivers a service for healthy women.
One of the biggest issues for the health service is the availability and development of anti-cancer drugs and how to cope with their cost. New drugs to treat ovarian cancer are not universally available in Wales; it is a lottery, with the drugs that women get depending on the area where they live. Each health authority in Wales has been recommended to prescribe and pay for certain drugs—they prolong life for 12 to 14 months—when the doctor thinks it appropriate, but some authorities say that they cannot afford it. The situation is not acceptable and must be tackled. A big breakthrough is being made in anti-cancer drugs but we have yet to work out how to tackle the issue.
I want to end with a tribute to a woman who died of breast cancer in Wales a week ago. Bernice worked hard to support other women with breast cancer, helping them to cope with the upset and strain of the disease as well as campaigning for more research. She lived life to the full until the end.
International women's day is a time to remember all those women, throughout the United Kingdom, who carry on, day after day, looking after children and keeping the wheels of the family turning, coping with many difficulties in addition to paid work or work in the home. This is a day on which to celebrate their achievements and renew our determination to tackle the issues that are their priorities.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I warmly welcome the second opportunity that I have had in my 20 months as a Member of Parliament to speak in a women's debate, celebrating not only international women's day, but our Government's record on delivering for women. As yet, we are the only party that has given such days for debate, following our practice when we were allowed to choose subjects for Opposition days. That shows our consistent support for women's issues. We have also paid consistent attention to the fact that women are the majority in the population and it is, therefore, naught but common sense to ensure that we engage women in the political debate. Government and Parliament must be seen to be for women and relevant to women.
We have heard much about the difference that 101 Labour women and 121 women Members of Parliament overall will make. My mother often jokes that women will know that they have true equality when mediocre women are accepted alongside the multitude of mediocre men by whom we have been governed—I know that there are plentiful exceptions—for many a decade.
I wish to pay tribute to the strong women in my life, who have been my role models. I am sad to say that I lost my grandmother this year—Queenie Elizabeth Grimshaw. It is obvious that she was born at the turn of the century

with a name like that. She was a socialist before my mother was born and gave me a grand old lecture when I was 16 about not presuming that, just because she spoke properly because she wanted to better herself, she was not a root and branch socialist. She organised women-only speaker engagements, training and choirs just after the second world war and ran a home, looking after a disabled mother—my great-grandmother—and two young boys. She knew exactly what grinding poverty was, but she also knew what pride was about. Her older sister, May Banks, is still with us at 98. She went through two world wars and was still doing meals on wheels at the age of 86. She now faces the indignity of developing breast cancer at 98.
Such women have been the backbone of our society and that is why it is important for us to celebrate international women's day. It is not unfashionable. Other hon. Members have talked about feeling awkward about 70s feminism, but it is common sense to examine how Government policies affect women. I want to put on record the abject difference between the approach of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and that of the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). Labour Members can appreciate the genuine attempt to make both critical and supportive comments by the hon. Member for Taunton, which are evidence of her commitment to women's issues. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) pointed out, the hon. Member for Maidenhead gave us false opposition that did not ring true, given the record of the previous Government during 18 years in power.
In contrast, we had the stark honesty of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who is honourable in her political beliefs to her fingertips. On many occasions before I became a Member of Parliament, I found myself agreeing with the hon. Lady on the issue of female reproductive rights. Her comments struck a chord with the truly international speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) about the correlation—which is so simple that even the International Monetary Fund and the World bank have now cottoned on to it—between educating women and improving the economic circumstances of a country. As the hon. Member for Billericay pointed out, educated women regulate the size of their families. A large group of my constituents come from Bangladesh and that country is having great success in turning around its economy. It is educating women, and thus slowing population growth and increasing prosperity. Neighbouring Pakistan, whose population growth is going through the roof, is only just beginning to realise that if women are educated and given real choices in education and employment, they will regulate the size of their families. That ensures a greater benefit for all the population through growth in the economy.
We need only consider the position of women in the rest of the world to realise how fragile our position is in this country. The programme that this Government have implemented has been much needed for a long time.
As we approach the millennium, I find it sad that Opposition Members, who claim to belong to the party of the family, can say that women, children and families will pay the price for ending bad employment practices and poverty pay. We should be saying that there is no room in a modern society and a prosperous economy for bad business practices, which have probably caused the UK to be the divorce capital of Europe and which have had some impact on our scandalous teenage pregnancy figures.
I pay tribute to the thoughtful and honest speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). It is sad that we cannot be honest without being browbeaten by people who do not have everyone's best interests at heart and who refuse to consider the reality of people's lives. Those people try to say that proper sex education in schools will lead to children going off and getting pregnant. They do that already; it makes no sense to argue against education. Around the world, it is clear that there is a downturn in teenage pregnancy and an increase in rates of staying on at school where people are more progressive about sex education,
Young women outstrip men in terms of their educational performance, but they are under-represented in the job market. Why should that be? That is a big question. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, as soon as there is a downturn in their interest in school, there is a stark increase in the chances that they will become a teenage pregnancy statistic. We must stop that.
The Government are introducing a much-needed policy, and the Minister dealt thoughtfully with the life cycle of women. She covered the lives that women live, from the time they are born, through the invaluable sure start project to their final years.
It was rich of the hon. Member for Maidenhead to talk about pensions and women. Who got rid of the earnings link, who means-tested pensions and who put the majority of women pensioners in poverty? The last Government did all that. The previous Labour Administration kept the earnings link, recognising that pension poverty was intolerable. Our Government are having to deal with the problems now.

Mrs. May: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lorna Fitzsimons: We are on a tight timetable and I must go on. Other hon. Members have waited a long time to speak.
I want to put the working families tax credit into context. The lie must be nailed that it is anything other than brilliant news for working women. On the doorsteps in Rochdale before the general election and in every other election in which I have travelled around with a mobile surgery, I saw that the plight of women in poverty who were trapped in social housing on council estates—good though some of it may be, provided as it is by Rochdale council, one of the best social housing providers—arose from the cost of child care and the differential between benefits and low-paid work. They were trapped at home. They did not have choices. For the first time, I can go to them now to tell them that they do have choices. The working families tax credit will make them £17 better off. They will have the choice of being paid the child care costs that they need if they choose to stay in work.
Another myth needs to be nailed on the purse-to-wallet issue. There was a problem, but the Government have solved it to a large degree. The Inland Revenue will administer the working families tax credit, and the man no longer needs to sign the form. The woman can be the main applicant, and the man can be the supporting applicant. Nearly 60 per cent. of recipients are already single parents. In one third of other cases, the woman is the main earner. In the remainder, the family can choose. If the woman receives the form because she is the current recipient of family credit, she can fill it in and receive the working families tax credit.
Some vulnerable women could never receive the benefit because him indoors did not want to declare what he earned as he wanted to go down the pub to swill it all down his neck. Now, the Inland Revenue can phone a woman, and if she can give some details of her husband's employment, the Revenue can make sure that she receives the money if the majority of the information provided is correct. Women previously unable to receive family credit will be able to receive working families tax credit. It can be paid to a same-sex couple or a non-married couple; it is good news. People who have had to work extraordinarily long hours, because this country is the long-hours-for-low-pay capital of Europe, can now stay at home and do homework with their kids. To address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) about men offering positive role models, half the reason that such role models are not available is that men are working slave-labour hours for slave-labour wages. They can offer positive role models for work and the work ethic, but cannot be at home to read to their children.
People can now have real choices. The Opposition's claim that the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit will force women out to work is codswallop. Families will have real choices—for example, one family member stays at home, which previously might not have been possible; or the other main earner can work fewer hours. The measures will give real choices. They will give real choices to the people whom I represent in Rochdale where, sadly, there are large numbers of single parents and teenage pregnancies, and we are over-represented in the poverty stakes.
I pay tribute to the raft of women's organisations which this debate acknowledges, and which have bridged the gap between the reality of women's lives and public legislation that has not talked the talk or walked the walk. Women know now that the Government are prepared to listen to them. We are not saying that we can offer a panacea for all ills and that everything is perfect. However, this morning at my town hall, I had the honour of opening the international women's week celebrations organised by the women's working party of Rochdale—a cross-party, multi-denominational group. That was a wonderful celebration of the richness of all the communities of Rochdale, and those women believed that this Government were starting to put women at the heart of Government. I believe that too, otherwise I should not sit on the Labour Benches.
I congratulate my colleagues on the Treasury Bench and I pay tribute to all the women out there who have made my position a reality, in that I am one of the younger women Members of Parliament. The tribute to their work is the fact that, hopefully, more and more women will enter Parliament so that we attain 51 per cent. representation in the next millennium.

Charlotte Atkins: I shall confine my remarks to the issue of part-time workers. The Government's decision to implement, through the Employment Relations Bill, the European Commission directive on part-time work will bring women benefits that are long overdue. Those benefits were denied to women by the previous Conservative Government, who blocked the Commission's proposals. That forced the Commission to introduce the proposals under the social


chapter, which of course the Tories had opted out of. There is now an historic package of measures that will bring new employment rights to millions of people; part-time workers will at last achieve the rights enjoyed by full-timers.
As everyone knows, part-time work is not confined to mums of young children who work to pick up pin money—that is an old concept. The contribution of part-time workers is vital to the household budget and to the whole economy. There are 6.6 million part-time jobs in Great Britain, of which more than 80 per cent. are held by women. There are more than 6,000 part-time workers in my constituency. Most people are happy to work part-time, but they should not be exploited merely because their work fits in with their domestic, caring or other responsibilities. What message does that send? It is that we do not value the caring, family responsibilities that many part-timers take on outside their paid work and that we are not a civilised society. The Government have introduced a national strategy for carers which acknowledges the huge contribution made by carers.
There should be a level playing field for full-time and part-time work, so that the economy can find the most efficient distribution between the two. No economic good can come from making part-time workers a cheap alternative to full-time workers. However, the Opposition do not seem to believe that—certainly not if their record in the Standing Committee on the Employment Relations Bill is anything to go by.
For too many women, part-time work has become synonymous with low pay and insecurity. We have seen the women's labour market polarised between a narrow band of women in professional and managerial posts, and the large and increasing number of low-paid, part-time workers. Poverty pay has generated spiralling benefit bills for the taxpayer and business. It is a transfer from the taxpayer to the sweatshop employer.
Labour's national minimum wage—which is about to come into force—will stop this subsidy to bad employers. It will also put an end to the old Burger King ploy of employing staff for a full shift, but paying them only for the time that they spend serving customers. For too long, that has been the attitude of employers to part-time staff. Under the Tory Government, flexibility became a euphemism for insecurity and exploitation. This Government recognise that the world of work is changing: the nine-to-five, Monday-to-Friday generation is passing and the number of part-time workers has doubled in 25 years. They are the linchpin of the economy; they work in every sector, in industry and commerce.
Part-timers care about their careers as much as full-timers, but many have been denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Many are denied access to training and management development. They are viewed as disposable, so companies will not invest in their skills. That is a huge waste of human potential, particularly of women workers. This scandal cannot continue—and it will not under a Labour Government. With equal rights for part-time workers, many more people will take up part-time work. People will be able to move between full-time and part-time work and back again at different stages of their lives without worrying about the impact on

their status, seniority, or their pension. It will create a society in which people can broaden their choice between working and engaging in other activities.
I fear that society is becoming increasingly divided. There are families who are work rich and income rich but leisure poor, such as families comprising two parents who work full time—in fact, who work all the hours they can—and have no time for their children. On the other hand, there are families who are not in employment—for example, single parents or couples with children—who are leisure rich, but extremely income poor. Neither side of the divide is ideal: both situations have a devastating impact on family life and both can be helped by the availability of good, well-paid part-time work to relieve the stress of increased costs and the increased time commitment required by family life.
Women's current experiences tell them that they can have a job, but not a career after having a baby. If they want responsible and rewarding work, they must adopt male working hours and employment patterns. With increased rights for part-time workers, we can challenge Britain's long-hours culture and male absenteeism from the home.

Ms Beverley Hughes: In view of the time, I shall be brief and concentrate on only one point. However, in so doing, I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), who referred to the continuing need for this kind of debate about women's issues. I reject the views expressed by some Opposition Members who seem to think that everything has been achieved.
In the past two years, this Government have done more for the interests of many different kinds of women than the Conservatives achieved in the past 20 years. The contributions of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and her hon. Friends were notable for their complete bankruptcy: they offered nothing by way of ideas or policy to address the real issues facing real women, and proved that they are completely out of touch.
The Government's priorities are to address issues that are important for women, such as work, child care, domestic violence and caring. As we have heard from one or two hon. Members, womanhood and the social experience of women embrace an even wider diversity of issues. Hon. Members have briefly touched on the point that the debate about women must also include issues of older and very old women. I call for the older woman— her past and current experiences—to be central to the debate about women.
Women over 65 are a substantial proportion of the total female population. Women are a substantial majority of the population over 65, and the world of the very old is almost exclusively a woman's world. Despite those facts, older women have been notable for their absence from the debate about the way in which gender shapes experience. As policy makers, we must not tolerate that omission because it will fail not only current but future generations of older women; and as we age, we will find ourselves confined to the rocking-chair that forms part of the stereotype about older women. As we know, such stereotypes hide the truth and mask the diversity and richness in the lives of many older women.
The Conservative party has always had difficulty with the view that people's class, race or gender has an impact on the course of their life. That is surprising when one


considers that nowhere is the impact of gender more clearly demonstrated than in this generation of older women. Their earlier lives were ones of enforced inequality and dependency structured by social values and enshrined in law, and it should therefore be no surprise that those characteristics have been carried into old age. Women are much more likely than men to be very old, very poor, single or widowed, living alone, living in poor housing and so on. Older women are among the most socially excluded people in our society.
We must not let those facts colour the whole picture, because the personal histories and testimonies of older women tell us also that if they are, in some senses, victims, they have not been passive victims. We would do well to remember that today's older women are survivors and that their lives have inevitably involved surmounting personal and social challenges throughout this century. As part of our commitment, older women must be given a central place as we develop ideas and policies for women.
Many older women continue to play vital roles for their families and society. They are the cornerstone of many grassroots organisations; they are the activists in residential homes, and it has already been said that political parties could not do without them. I could easily bring to mind women in my constituency who are in their 70s and 80s and who are still active. They have not arrived at that age without any of the consequences of living that long; they simply carry on regardless. They have arthritis and they are living on low incomes, but they continue to contribute, as they have always done.
Government policy can have an enormous impact on older women. The previous Government's policies, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) has outlined, made the lives of many older women even poorer and more restricted than they already were. This Government, particularly through their policies on welfare and community care, have already started to introduce reforms that will help older women, including reducing VAT on fuel, guaranteeing a minimum income that will rise with earnings, and helping with winter fuel.
As well as those important economic and welfare policies, we should do more to bring older women into the mainstream of our thinking on policies for women. We can begin to do so in a number of ways. We must challenge the existing stereotypes of old women and validate the contributions that they continue to make to their families and local communities. We must ensure— this is a particular point for Ministers for Women—that the voices of older women are heard distinctly in the listening to women exercise that is now being conducted. We must ensure that Ministers speak specifically to older women, bringing back the issues that they raise. We must ensure that services for older people are delivered in gender-sensitive ways. We know that the way in which many health and social services are delivered is important.

Ms Hazel Blears: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate, and delighted to see so many women Members of Parliament in the Chamber. We do not quite fulfil the definition of girl power; perhaps woman power would be more appropriate.
I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health—the Minister responsible for women's issues. It was full of positive proposals to

improve women's lives, in marked contrast to the speech of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who, apart from an obsession with a flexible labour market, had nothing positive to say on behalf of women. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) is not in her place because I wanted to welcome her to her Front-Bench post. I wonder whether her appointment is part-time, temporary and casual, and she is participating in the Tories' flexible labour market, or whether she is on a full-time contract. Perhaps she will enlighten us later.
This is a serious and very exciting debate, partly because of the policies that the Government are delivering, which will make a real difference to women's lives, and partly because of the tremendous achievements that women in communities throughout Britain and the world have already made. I shall talk about the experiences of women in constituencies such as mine in the inner city, and the way in which the Government's policies are making a practical difference on the ground.
The Tory legacy in areas such as Salford is absolutely horrific. There is mass unemployment, and poverty and ill health are widespread. A woman in Salford is likely to have seven fewer healthy years than a woman in Surrey. A child born in the city today is likely to die five years earlier than one born in a more affluent community. That is the reality for many families in places like my constituency. Tackling the problems of social exclusion is the greatest challenge facing communities such as mine.
Managing money, finding work and trying to improve one's health and make a better life for one's family can sometimes seem like an impossible mountain to climb to many women who struggle every day with all such problems and more, but this Government have brought hope to our cities, and especially women. I pay tribute to the organisations and women in Salford who are so often at the heart of projects which renew and improve our communities.
I have been involved with Salford women's centre since its birth 15 years ago. It is a haven for many women in our city. It provides a range of activities from creative writing and aromatherapy to stress counselling, as well as a mental health drop-in centre, further education classes, high-quality child care and counselling for people with alcohol and drugs problems. Its latest venture, the unity cafe, is very appropriately named. Women work together, funded through the national lottery, involving young people through the new deal, providing training courses, education, cookery classes, health promotion and healthy eating programmes. It is a perfect example of women working in partnership, taking advantage of all the Government's programmes and initiatives, to make a real difference to women's lives in the community.
The women's centre is part of our health action zone. It is a very practical way in which to deliver health promotion and other health services—not in a traditional clinical setting, but in an environment where women feel comfortable and at ease while taking advantage of health services.
Smoking cessation is a key issue to women in inner cities. I make a plea to the Minister to extend the nicotine replacement therapy programme from one week, as it is in health action zones, to three or four weeks, to give women a real chance to give up smoking. Doing so will probably make the biggest single difference possible to their health and that of their families.
As well as being in a health action zone, Salford has the benefit of being in an education action zone. We are helping to raise standards and, crucially, the aspirations of our young people, especially young women. The involvement of adults as mentors and role models is helping young people to broaden their horizons and think about careers of which they would never have dreamt. That is vital if we are to expand young women's choices and reduce the number of teenage pregnancies, which is far too high. Such pregnancies blight the lives of women for many years to come. I am delighted that we are also a trailblazer for sure start, which will be fundamental in broadening the horizons and choice of women in my area. That is real joined-up government—health, social services and education acting together for the benefit of women in our communities.
We have made a bid under the single regeneration budget, which will be decided in April. It is about building a sustainable community in our inner city, which has been decimated in recent years. From my experience, women are often at the heart of projects to build sustainable communities. I shall briefly mention two very special Salford women who are an incredible example of the drive, determination and commitment that it takes to make real change.
Mrs. Betty Burton is the driving force behind Apple Tree court, which was recently visited by my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is a grey tower block in the middle of the inner city, once unpopular and hard to let, now a thriving and vibrant community. Working with a dedicated team, Betty Burton has created an oasis in the concrete jungle.
At the foot of the tower block there is a wonderful community garden. The tenants grow flowers and vegetables. I am told that they even grow aubergines—in Salford! Local children learn about nature in the wildflower garden. Pensioners come to the cafe for good quality, affordable meals. There is a conservatory to catch the sun. There is even a duck pond with ducks. That woman has transformed that community almost singlehandedly. It would not have happened without Betty Burton; I believe that she is a woman who can move mountains.
Mrs. Levy is another of our formidable Salford women. She also lives in a tower block—we have rather a lot of them in Salford. She saw that people in the block had nowhere to go, nowhere to make friends, nowhere to do their washing and nowhere to be in touch with one another, so she decided to create a drop-in centre—a place where people could get to know one another, get welfare rights advice and have the benefit of all the services in the community. She raised the funds almost singlehandedly. She managed to get a grant from John Paul Getty Junior to build a community launderette. That is probably the most unusual grant that the John Paul Getty foundation has ever made. That is real initiative; it is get up and go, and in many cases it is women who have that type of energy. We must ensure that we support and encourage those women to make a difference.
Perhaps there is something about Salford that creates strong women. We are proud to be able to claim Emmeline Pankhurst as a Salford woman.
Women are achieving, but the Government are helping us enormously to do so. The national minimum wage, which has been so disparaged by Conservative Members, will benefit 2,000 women in Salford—many of whom are low-paid part-time workers in the cleaning, catering and retail trades, who are paid £2 to £2.50 an hour. The Opposition have made it plain that they will repeal that legislation, and 2,000 women in my constituency will be worse off if we ever—heaven forbid—have a Tory Government again.
The massive increase in child benefit—the biggest ever—will help more than 9,000 families in Salford to have a better income and a decent life. The new deal and the national child care strategy will be key to tackling poverty, but I suggest to Ministers that a great deal of extra work will be needed if we are to have a national child care strategy.
In an inner-city ward in my constituency, we have only one registered child minder. We must build capacity, ensuring that we have not only child minders but after-school clubs and the full range of facilities for people to key into. In many districts, that provision does not exist, and we have a long way to go to build it up. I know that the Government have the intention and determination to do so, but I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that, if we are to give every woman access to high quality child care, we must ensure that that provision is universal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said, that provision must be affordable and accessible to people on a very low income.
The new deal is very welcome indeed, but I notice that at first it was limited to people out of work and claiming benefit, which meant that 85 per cent. of the eligible people were men and that it was difficult for women to access the scheme. I am delighted that the scheme has been extended to partners, so that more and more women may access that scheme, which will give them a chance to get back to work.
We must ensure that all the social initiatives that I have talked about tonight are properly integrated—properly joined up—so that people, especially women, do not fall through the net. I know that that is a tremendous task for the Government to take on. I believe that the Government are working across Departments, beginning to deliver opportunities that can transform women's lives, but one of our biggest tasks is to convince women that they can take up those opportunities—to help them to have self-esteem, confidence and a belief in their ability to succeed. That, I believe, will be the real difference that this Labour Government make.

Ms Dari Taylor: I am pleased to be able to make this contribution on international women's day. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health on introducing the debate on delivering for women. In my constituency this most definitely means choice. It means a range of choice, from universal nursery provision and the national minimum wage to good family-friendly policies and the working families tax credit. These are all incredibly valuable measures, and my constituents are talking about them and have high expectations from them.
My constituency has been celebrating international women's day and I shall talk about that gently while wearing my defence hat. As many in the House


know, I have been keenly involved with the armed forces for some time. When I visited Bosnia and Srebrenica I was taken by the fact that our armed forces are not only the stabilising but the building-up force in that torn country. We may find ourselves doing exactly the same thing in Kosovo. I say that because the Labour Government have widened opportunities for women in the armed forces, and I want that to be celebrated as widely as all other measures. When the Labour Government took office, only 47 per cent. of all the positions within the armed forces were available to women. Now, more than 77 per cent. of positions are available to them. That is valuable.
Two of our women are controlling frigates. That is a sign of things to come. I want to join up the way in which I celebrate the involvement of women—the serious development of women within the armed forces and the use of their talent—with a small group of people who are active in my constituency. The group is called Women's Aid and its members too have been in Srebrenica. Four of them described themselves as ordinary women with nothing very special about them to suggest that they could open the doors and get into Srebrenica. On hearing of the hideous happenings that were taking place in that area, however, they decided that they wanted to play a part.
These four women operated an organisation called Hands for Friendship. They managed to get the funds for a lorry and they filled it with medical provisions, blankets, books and anything else that they thought would be valuable. These are four ordinary, everyday women. They drove across Europe and they found themselves at the border with the passport people saying, "No, I am sorry, you can't come in. There is no way we can allow you in." They begged, pleaded, cried and stayed at the border for two nights and two days until eventually they broke down the reserve of those on the border and they were allowed in.
The women went into Bosnia and then they went on into Serbia. They went into areas that were especially dangerous. Nobody would guarantee their safety and nobody would protect them because they could not do so. Such women are to be celebrated.
The four women managed to get to Tuzla. They wanted to be with the women of Tuzla, who were remembering the massacre that had occurred there. Let us remind ourselves that, overnight, 10,000 men disappeared— murdered, and not even buried. They were left strewn on a mountainside. The ordinary women of Tuzla wanted one thing only, and that was to bury their dead. They wanted to find their sons and husbands. These four ordinary women said, "We will help you in any way we can." The women of Tuzla wanted to get to a small place called Dulici where they knew that many of their men were probably buried in mass graves. Again, the four women had to go through terrain that was unknown and isolated. They were threatened with ambush. They were stoned and shot at, but they stuck with the Tuzla women and walked the journey.
The Russians said, "No, there is border control and you cannot go through." The British, too, said that they could not go through. However, they pleaded. The Tuzla women said, "They are our menfolk and we have a right to kneel at their graves. Please let us through." Eventually, the women were let through. Those are women whom we should always celebrate—ordinary women, women who were so poor that they had no shoes and barely more than

the clothes that they stood up in. They wanted to do what is only decent—to say a prayer over the graves of their loved ones.
I must tell the House that I am incredibly proud of the women of my constituency, particularly Naseem Akhtar. I am sad to say that ultimately the women were turned back. They did not make it to Dulici and had to go back to Tuzla. They cried, they were heartbroken, but they had done their best.
On international women's day, when the House has remembered so much that is valuable, we know that the women and the families in our communities will value so much of what the Labour Government are doing. It is appropriate that we remember that throughout the world there are women who are not even capable of articulating such an agenda. It is meaningful to them, but it is totally outside their grasp. I hope that in celebrating women's lives and the roles that we play, we will remember the women who are fighting so hard in other countries, in desperate situations, to define rights that we consider inviolable in our own country.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: This has been an extremely interesting debate. There has been some selective memory, a great deal of propaganda and a great number of words. I shall try to do justice to some of the contributions that we heard today.
The first speaker from the Back Benches was the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). She spoke about the importance of universal, affordable child care. Many others spoke about universal, affordable child care, as though that was something new and different, which was actually in place. I must tell the House that in my constituency there is absolutely no difference between the affordable child care today and that which existed before 1 May 1997.
Before that, there was a great increase in child care places. A large number of out-of-school children's initiative places were created by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). She introduced nursery vouchers and tax relief on workplace nurseries. As a result of the Children Act 1989, each area had to develop a child care plan. The suggestion that the position was new and totally different on 1 May 1997 is not one with which I entirely identify.
The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham also spoke about power-sharing and the importance of change within Government. I can understand her doing that. At her time, there was an editorial in The Economist which stated:
Bringing more women into Parliament is, of course, an achievement in itself—
I pay credit to it. The editorial continueed:
But there is not yet much sign that the advent of Blair's babes represents a decisive breakthrough for female politicians… Because Mr. Blair has made it brutally clear that Labour back-benchers are expected to toe the line set by the party leadership, few of the new intake of women have had a chance to make much of an impression in Parliament.


The document "Delivering for Women—Progress so far" is an extraordinary series of trite comments. We read that
Crime blights the lives of victims"—
not too controversial there. We are told that
A decent environment is our legacy to our children
and that
Efficient transport is vital to our economy and our quality of life".
There are many other bland, trite comments. Perhaps more sinister, given the way that the Government do business, is the definition of the Cabinet. The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham may have some sense of this. The Cabinet is defined as
A group of senior Ministers appointed to advise the Prime Minister. A collegiate approach is adopted.
That is the new and quaint definition of the Cabinet, which I discovered in "Better for women, better for all". I think that it is despicable for women and appalling for all. I consulted the Library, which provided as one definition of "cabinet":
A piece of furniture for display.
I could see that it could be for display. Another definition was:
A committee formed of the most important members of the Government chosen by the Prime Minister or President to be in charge of the main Government Departments.
Women are being flattered, but essentially fobbed off with the Government's publications.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) talked about a number of important issues such as separate taxation and the possible adverse effects on women of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill—the comment that paid caring is valued more by the Government than unpaid caring is frequently repeated. She also commented on the use of family-friendly policies in the House of Commons. I would deplore any further reduction in the number of opportunities for Back Benchers to get their points over. We have a tyrannical Executive who will do anything to reduce the number of opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise their actions.
The way in which Parliament has been diminished and insulted during the past couple of years is disgraceful. Thursday afternoons used to be extremely busy, but hon. Members would be lucky to see three cars in Speaker's Court now. The place is deserted by Thursday evening, which is a great sadness and a great disgrace.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Would the right hon. Lady support any moves towards a more civilised balance of hours— which, I believe, is what the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) was suggesting—rather than a reduction? Does she realise that we are not doing fewer hours because of what I hope is the permanent modification of Thursdays? We have reordered Thursdays to achieve a more civilised working environment.

Mrs. Bottomley: The difficulty is that the greater the number of days on which the Government cannot be held to account, the greater the number of opportunities they have to be ruthless and manipulative and to avoid high profile occasions. When the Government came to power

they immediately initiated the longest holiday that Parliament has ever known; there was a Government who were longing to get on with their business.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) spoke on a subject to which I hope to return at greater length. She talked about the women's day of prayer, international women's day and Jubilee 2000. I hope that she will support the concerns of the Churches in respect of the Government excessively politicising the millennium celebrations and the dome. The Government rubbished those issues when they were in opposition and they have politicised them in government. It is extremely important that Church leaders have the opportunity to register what the millennium celebrations are about and to achieve real changes on the commitments of Jubilee 2000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) made a splendid speech in which he covered many areas and identified the issue of playgroups, which has been repeatedly raised with me. Playgroups face real problems such as the loss of jobs for women as a result of the minimum wage and the loss of choices for parents. He also mentioned the possible 90,000 job losses in the hotel, retail and textiles sectors as a result of the minimum wage and the £39.3 billion tax on business resulting from the Government's actions.
The key point is that a prosperous, effective and flexible market will create jobs for women. That is why, so spectacularly in the past 20 years, women in Britain have achieved levels that they had never previously achieved and have had opportunities at work that were never previously open to them. There is more to be done, but the dramatic transformation over the past 20 years—at work and particularly in education—has been formidable.
Much of the Government's document is, in effect, a paean of praise to the steps taken by the previous Government. There has been a dramatic transformation involving women in higher education, where there are more women than men, as well as GCSE results, A-level results and achievements at every level. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said that Labour Members have Barbie doll policies; one could say only that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development would be known as their Ken.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) talked about violence against women. That area is of great importance, but she seemed unaware of the steps that were taken before 1 May 1997 such as the White Paper on protecting the public, changes in respect of sex offenders, the establishment of an interdepartmental group on domestic violence and a public awareness campaign. I looked back at "A Guide to Services for Women", which was produced in 1993 and has a great section on domestic violence. These are difficult and intractable problems, and there is no room for complacency, but the idea that words on their own can deliver change is naive and irresponsible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) made a splendid speech, and I identified with a number of elements in it. My first job was working for the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). At the time, we were fighting bitterly to save family allowances for women. The Labour party has always been dominated by the trade unions and the "man at work", and there was a real battle. I went to the headquarters of the Transport and General Workers Union to try to persuade the union to


support the campaign. I am pleased to say that one of the most able advocates at the time was Molly Meacher. Together we campaigned long and hard.
This is a battle that is never finished, and now, with the working families tax credit, we have it again—the move from the purse to the wallet. As we await tomorrow's Budget statement, we are faced with the threat of the taxation of child benefit, which would be a deplorable and retrograde step. It would penalise couples when the wife stayed at home and the husband was earning, say, £35,000 a year, as opposed to couples both of whose members were working, earning perhaps £20,000 or £25,000 each.
More importantly, child benefit is the way in which we register the existence of children in our society. The move away from child tax allowances meant that everyone benefited in the same way. The point about child tax allowances was that the better off were given more advantage in return for their responsibilities. Turning the clock back would be an act that women would never forget, and for which they would never forgive the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham spoke of the increasing irrelevance of some of the debate, given the perhaps more worrying alienated group of young men. As she will know, her concern is shared. In her Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation"—not to be confused with our White Paper, "The Health of the Nation"—the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) spoke of anxieties about suicide. I was pleased that her ideas about the priorities for health improvement were so similar to the ideas that she had inherited. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned all-women shortlists. It would take a great deal to persuade my party of their desirability, although we would certainly all agree that the party should do more to encourage more women to join us.
Given all the discussion of role models that we have heard, and the welcome tributes from many Labour Members to women in their constituencies who have played an important part, I felt that I must quote a recent newspaper headline:
Maggie is the boss of all role models".
Certainly, the achievements of Margaret Thatcher, as our first woman Prime Minister, and those of the first woman Leader of the House of Lords, Lady Young, are extremely important developments—although, like others, I wish that those developments had been reflected in the presence of more women in Conservative constituencies.

Miss McIntosh: Do you agree, Madam Speaker, that a great omission on the part of the Government has been their failure to recognise the role model that you have been to all of us, in Parliament and outside, as a very distinguished lady in politics? Perhaps the Minister will make amends in her winding-up speech.

Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot cope with that, Madam Speaker.
Much has been made of the new deal for lone parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) dealt with that admirably: there has been a 3.8 per cent. success rate, at a cost of £200 million. I am disappointed

that the hon. Member for Keighley did not refer to some of the international human rights issues which I hope to mention, and which have been extraordinarily lacking in today's debate.
My excessively generous hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) stressed the need for a distinction between fact and fiction. How right she was. She went on to identify an issue that I am delighted to hear the Government have supported equally and that was crucial in achieving many changes for women: Opportunity 2000.
I take great pride in having led the national health service into Opportunity 2000: the Department of Health was the first Government Department to enter the initiative. Unlike the Government's documents, on joining Opportunity 2000, the NHS set explicit targets on how many more women consultants, women managers, women accountants and women on health authorities and trusts we were seeking. There was a dramatic increase in the number of women on NHS trusts and health authority boards.
Among those who we were able to use that as a springboard to great career success were Baroness Jay, Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Hayman, Baroness Dean—all people whom I took pleasure in appointing—the Liberal Democrat colleague of the hon. Member for Taunton, Julia Neuberger, and many others.
If there has been widespread shock over the behaviour of the new Government, it has been about their particularly partisan appointments to many of the health authorities and trusts.

Mr. David Maclean: And regional development agencies.

Mrs. Bottomley: And regional development agencies. Having personally been involved in the selection and appointment of so many people, particularly women who went on to great success in the Labour Government, I am qualified to comment.
I am particularly pleased to hear that Dame Rennie Fritchie has been appointed the commissioner for public appointments. She was a distinguished regional chairman and she was central to the development and unrolling of Opportunity 2000 in the NHS. She is a great advocate of family-friendly and practical employment policies. I want to register her contribution.
The point about Opportunity 2000, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), but led by the business community, was that it worked with people. It was about encouragement and setting goals. It was not coercive. It was not bullying.
The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) was the designer of Emily's list. I am sorry that she did not refer to advice for women through the list. Nor did she refer to her experiences in South Africa. The role of women in South Africa today is something that I want to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) spoke on the important issues affecting older women. I speak not just from self-interest. I hope that hon. Members will have the opportunity to look at the university of Manchester's Pennell initiative,


again chaired by Dame Rennie Fritchie, which examined coronary heart disease, breast cancer, depression, bone disorders and social isolation among older people.
Older people are equally worried about the raiding of social service budgets, the inability to deliver a carer strategy, the fudging on the royal commission on the long-term care of the elderly, the mess and complexity over pension reform and, above all, the loss of the tax credit on dividend share income.
I regret not being able to identify all the others who have spoken admirably during the debate, but I need to speak about international women's day. We celebrate 50 years since the universal declaration of human rights. The Secretary-General's message to us all today is most important. We can look with some pride at the remarkable achievements so far. He said:
We entered a century where women had the right to vote in a mere handful of countries; we leave one where the vast majority of countries have universal suffrage. We entered a century where women were practically excluded from decision-making; we leave one where the participation of women at senior levels of leadership, national and international, is no longer questioned.
But it is a world where, in Afghanistan, India, east Jerusalem, South Africa, China, Yemen, Peru, Ethiopia, Ghana and places throughout the continents, women have no human rights. There is continued bride burning, female infanticide, genital mutilation, appalling domestic violence, and a lack of participation in the political process.
Today's debate has been unforgivably self-centred. We have focused on issues in which dramatic progress has been made in Britain, as if the rest the world scarcely existed. I especially commend the work of the British Council—of which I am vice-chairman, and honoured to be so—which is doing practical, important and courageous work in all those countries. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has just reported on human rights and asked the British Council particularly to address its concerns; the concerns of women will be foremost among those.
This has been an important debate. This century, we have made great changes in the United Kingdom. Our task and priority now should be to deal with the plight of women around the world.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): This has been a thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. We have reached some agreement across the political divide on the issues of importance to women in Britain today. In a sense, that in itself was telling, for—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) said—women often bring a welcome and different approach to politics. I think that we have demonstrated the truth of that statement in our discourse today. On both sides of the House, the speeches by hon. Members—with one or two less notable exceptions by Opposition Members—have shown that we can identify common needs and priorities without engaging in sterile political banter.
There are, of course, differences in substance between the parties. Conservative Members oppose the minimum wage, whereas Labour Members warmly welcome the

impact that it will have, especially on the 1.3 million women who will benefit from it. We differ from Conservative Members on a national child care strategy. They have traditionally believed that child care is a matter of private concern for families, with the state intervening only when the child is at risk, whereas we think that there is a proper role for the Government in creating a child care infrastructure that will better promote the interests of children and families.
We differ also on family-friendly employment. Our new Bill will establish a statutory right to unpaid parental leave, a better package of maternity rights, a right to time off in emergencies and stronger rights for part-time workers. All those measures will not only benefit society overall, but make a real practical difference to women's lives. The Conservative party opposes all those measures.
This has been an excellent debate, in which we have heard some eloquent and emotive arguments. It has also been fascinating to hear right. hon. and hon. Ladies give the female perspective on key aspects of Government policy. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for the contribution that she made during her time in office in addressing many issues of importance to women. I assure her that we shall consider seriously the issues that she raised today.
I welcome the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who talked about how our policies, right across Government, have impacted on women in her constituency.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) made a constructive speech, mentioning the consideration that we should give to proposals from the Equal Opportunities Commission. We shall be responding to those proposals. However, we shall not—as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) intimated—be suggesting that we should abolish the Equal Opportunities Commission.
Several speeches—including a sincere one by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), and a passionate one by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)—dealt with the international dimension of today's celebration. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) also dealt with the international dimension. I should tell the hon. Member for Vale of York that my noble Friend the Minister for Women is today at the United Nations, speaking on the status of women. We therefore do take our international responsibility seriously.
Hon. Members spoke about the importance of women's representation, both in this place and in other arenas. I particularly welcome the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who described to the House how abolition of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords will help to push us up the European league on representation of women.
I was very struck by the thoughtful and important speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who showed a telling understanding of the problems faced by teenage mothers. I tell the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that we shall be making proposals on programmes dealing with teenage pregnancies. We think that the issue is so important that it is being addressed, across Government, by the social exclusion unit, with the support of the women's unit.
Several hon. Members have talked about the importance of our child care policies and our family-friendly policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) described the difference that they made to the lives of her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) stressed the importance of our policies, which were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage talked about the importance of the child care strategy and how she wanted an end to women being forced to choose between the children whom they love and the jobs that they need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) and others raised the crucial issue of older women. That is a central part of the strategy that we shall be delivering. Our ideas and policies for older women will be developed through a listening programme by the women's Ministers and those responsible for the programme of listening to older people. I was also delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) celebrating female role models.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised concerns about the working families tax credit. The Conservatives do not understand its effects. It will benefit more than 400,000 low-income families, helping many women. Transferring money from the purse to the wallet is not an issue, because those who benefit from the tax credit can choose how it is paid.
The Conservatives' opposition to the minimum wage is nonsense, given its importance to women. The minimum wage is not the cause of the closure of playgroups. Recent pre-school closures have been a direct result of the previous Government's policies on nursery vouchers. The idea that we should have child care on the cheap by exploiting women working in that most important role of giving a good early start to our children is outrageous.

Mrs. May: Does the Minister accept that the Pre-School Learning Alliance has said that hundreds of pre-schools have closed as a result of this Government's policy on the provision of early-years education? Does she further accept that if the introduction of the minimum wage means that the cost of child care through pre-schools becomes so great that people cannot afford it, those pre-schools will close?

Ms Hodge: The Pre-School Learning Alliance blames the previous Government for the closure of thousands of pre-schools. The working families tax credit and the child care tax credit component will ensure that workers in pre-schools can be paid the decent wage that they deserve.
Some argue that it is unnecessary to focus on an agenda for women and that it is simply a gesture of political correctness. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), who said in her strong contribution that such people are wrong. Of course, policies that benefit women will benefit everyone—better schools, better health services and better community safety—but if we do not consider the issues facing women in our unequal society, we shall fail to achieve the fair and inclusive society that we want.
The lot of women has massively improved over the past 25 years. Girls now out-perform boys at school. We have also made great strides in higher education. In 1970,

twice as many men as women took a degree. Now men and women enrol as students in equal numbers; ever more women now work. In the past 10 years, the proportion of working-age women in the labour market has increased, while the proportion of working-age men has declined. Most dramatic has been the increase in the number of mothers in work whose youngest child is under five. That figure has gone up by 10 per cent. in the past 10 years. More than half the mothers of children under five now work.
Life has become easier in the home. No longer do we have to spend hours at the kitchen sink scrubbing the dirt off the potatoes, and most modern washing machines can cope with woollens without shrinking them. However, those advances have brought new needs that are particular to women and new issues that affect not just women, but all of us. At the same time, old inequalities still persist. Women still earn 20 per cent. less than men—often for doing an equal job. Even at 18, when girls have done better than boys at school, they earn 6 per cent. less.
The glass ceiling persists, with only 4 per cent. of directorships in companies being held by women—and those are mainly in marketing and human resources, not in finance or industrial production. Although we are all delighted that there are more women in the House, the proportion is still only one in five. However, three out of four of those working in clerical or secretarial jobs are women.
One in four women will, at some time in their lives, experience domestic violence—an issue raised by many, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, the hon. Member for Taunton and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West, for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, for Keighley and for Enfield, North.
A responsible Government, knowing these facts, must address the issues implicit in them. That is just what we are doing—and doing successfully. At the same time, the welcome changes have brought new challenges. More women work, but many are working part-time. In fact, four out of five part-time workers are women, and the rights for part-time workers that we are introducing are crucial for women. With more women at work, affordable, accessible and high-quality child care is vital.
I do not know where the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) has been but, in the first two years of the new Labour Government, we have created more real child care places than the last Government did in 18 years. Our national child care strategy recognises the needs of mothers who choose to stay at home, as well those who need to—or choose to—work.
For many of us, our needs and concerns are the same as they always were. We still bear most of the responsibilities in the home. Even with school-age children, we are the ones to sort out everything from homework to the dentist's appointment; from making sure the children get to their sports activity after school to rushing them to the accident and emergency department when they fall and bang their heads. We are the ones most likely to care for sick, disabled or elderly relatives. We have to juggle our lives and our time to cope with pressures.
That is why the Government's emphasis on encouraging a better balance between work and home is so important. That is why we are committed to ensuring


that paid employment is more compatible with family life. It is not corporatist Britain, as suggested by the hon. Member for Maidenhead—it is common sense that brings bottom-line benefits to businesses and to families.
I am proud of our record in government. In a mere 21 months, we have achieved immeasurably more than the Opposition achieved in a miserable and interminable 18 years: a national child care strategy; a minimum wage; the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit; a new deal for lone parents; the biggest ever hike in child benefit; a new minimum income guarantee for pensioners, many of whom are women; the introduction of parental leave; new rights for part-time workers; proposed reforms of the Child Support Agency; £19 billion to improve educational standards; measures to cut crime, reduce the fear of crime and tackle issues of importance to women, such as the giving of evidence in rape trials; a national carers' strategy, with a new £140 million package to help carers take a break; £20 billion for the national health service, with money specifically set aside to speed up both preventive care and the treatment of breast cancer; £40 million announced last week to help phase out mixed wards; and targets to ensure that half the appointments to public bodies are women.
We are listening, responding and doing, and we are addressing those issues which most concern most women. We are not in the business of dictating to women—we are in the business of ensuring that they have a real and effective choice. We know that there is much left to do as we continue to tackle women's inequality and to develop policies to improve all our lives.
As we move towards the new millennium, women's concerns are finally being given the weight and the consideration that they deserve. We may be confident that this Administration will continue to place women at the very heart of Government.

Jane Kennedy (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Northern Ireland

10 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move,
That the draft North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies)(Northern Ireland) Order 1999 be approved.
The debate in the new Northern Ireland Assembly on 15 February dealt with some fundamental aspects of the Good Friday agreement. Members of the Assembly discussed the civic forum and how it would be best for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to appoint members to it. They debated how the British-Irish Council might perform in ensuring that relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and the new devolved Administrations, can work in the future.
Members of the Assembly dealt with the 10 Departments of the Executive that are to run Northern Ireland after devolution. The House of Commons approved the order setting up the 10 Departments of State in Northern Ireland, as did the other place some weeks ago. Today, we are dealing with what was known during the talks process as strand 2 of the agreement. We are dealing with what is termed the North-South Ministerial Council—a body based in many ways on the European Council of Ministers—which is to deal with areas of co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The agreement specified areas in which co-operation may occur, and those areas were extended and debated in the Assembly on 15 February—they include transport, tourism, the environment, agriculture, education and health—although the details are to be decided by the Council itself.
The order provides the statutory basis for the six agreed so-called implementation bodies, to deal with inland waterways; food safety; trade and business development; language; and aquaculture and marine matters. The details are in the Library for hon. Members to consult.
The order deals with how the bodies will operate, including details on their functions; annual reports and accounts; grants; staffing; and other issues. It is important for the House to realise that after devolution the British Government will have no role in the day-to-day operation of the bodies.
The two Governments were charged by the agreement with drawing up the legislation and the treaty, which is in schedule 1 of the document and was signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland's Foreign Affairs Minister in Dublin this morning. All the details on the implementation bodies and the treaty itself are the result of intensive negotiations before Christmas, ending in the early hours of 18 December, after Christmas, and indeed right up until only yesterday.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Part VII of the order deals with aquaculture and marine matters. What is the likelihood of the implementation body engaging in matters relating to the common fisheries policy or fish farming?

Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend doubtless heard me when I said that the way in which the bodies will operate


will depend on the Northern Ireland Assembly and on the Republic. It is important that there will be an opportunity in the British-Irish Council for people from the Scottish Parliament, from the Welsh Assembly, and of course from Westminster, to discuss matters of common concern, including fishing. The European side will of course remain a matter for the Ministers from the sovereign states. The appropriate Minister for agriculture and fisheries in Northern Ireland will play his or her part in discussions on fisheries.
The negotiations continued until yesterday. That explains the relative lateness of the documentation, which right hon. and hon. Members might normally have expected to receive earlier. I apologise to the House for the lateness, but these are unusual circumstances and times. We have discussed the issue through the usual channels and, of course, much of the detail is already in the public domain and has been discussed and debated in the agreement itself, in the various meetings of the Northern Ireland Assembly and in documents that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the Deputy First Minister have circulated to all parties in Northern Ireland in the past few weeks.
Another reason why we are dealing with the matter today is that the Government pledged to complete all the necessary legislative preparations for devolution, and all the issues in connection with the agreement as far as they affect devolution, by 10 March. That we have now done, if the House approves the motion—as I presume it will— and if the other place approves it tomorrow. The only step then remaining will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to judge whether it appears to her, as it says in the agreement,
that sufficient progress has been made in implementing the Belfast Agreement, to permit the transfer of powers to the new Assembly.
That transfer would be the devolution order itself, which will be debated by this House and the other place.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend mentioned the British-Irish Council. If that body is to have a fixed locus, I can think of no better city than Glasgow. The Nordic Council has a fixed locus, with a secretariat of some 70 people. I know that Liverpool has a good case, but I do not believe that Belfast, Dublin or London has a case. It should be Glasgow—does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Murphy: I would get into terrible trouble if I agreed anything on the British-Irish Council and its secretariat. Stranraer, the Isle of Man, Liverpool and Cardiff have all expressed an interest, and we shall have to wait and see. It is a matter for the council itself and the two Governments to discuss.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated that she would be ready to call a meeting of the Assembly as early as 10 March to allow the so-called d'Hondt procedure to be run. As hon. Members will know, that procedure would trigger the formation of the new Assembly's Executive. She has made a further announcement about that matter today. She announced that in her consultations with Northern Ireland parties she heard differing views. Some wanted the running of d'Hondt to be delayed and others wanted it to go ahead immediately. All those who support the agreement remain committed to achieving full implementation of all its aspects as quickly as possible, and all the parties said that they wanted to move forward on an inclusive basis.
In the light of the differing views, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that 10 March would not be the best time to run the d'Hondt procedure. She has concluded that if it were to be run, it would not produce an effective Executive on which both communities would be represented. Indeed, some parties feared that running d'Hondt this week might even collapse the process. My right hon. Friend also recognised that the decision could not be put off indefinitely. Therefore, she announced today that she would call a meeting of the Assembly to run the d'Hondt procedure no later than the week beginning 29 March. That is the week of Good Friday, which is the anniversary of the agreement. That will give the parties the time and space to find a way forward. Many of the Northern Ireland political leaders will be visiting the USA. There will be opportunities to build confidence and to talk informally in preparation for an intensive round of discussions on their return to Belfast.
Many of us find such an announcement disappointing. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, we can, with determination and courage, take the next steps towards bringing the agreement to fruition. We will work closely with the Irish Government and all other supporters of the agreement to find a constructive way forward.
It is against that background that the House is considering the order. It will put in place the new implementation bodies, which are an important piece of the new infrastructure under the agreement. The bodies will operate fully in accordance with the terms of the agreement as is spelled out in the treaty attached to the order. Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council who are responsible for the various bodies—or any additional bodies that they may decide to establish by future agreement—will be fully accountable to the Assembly and to Oireachtas.
Mechanisms to ensure proper accountability and transparency were included in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They include the requirement that the Executive Committee and the Assembly should be notified of the dates and agendas for meetings of the ministerial council. Northern Ireland Ministers will be accountable to the Assembly for their actions in the council, just as they will be for their other responsibilities.
By law, Assembly Ministers who participate in the council will be required to act in accordance with the decisions of the Assembly or the Executive Committee. Northern Ireland Ministers will also require Assembly approval for any decisions that go beyond their defined authority. Any agreement in the council that requires new legislation will require the support of the Assembly. No agreement to establish a new implementation body can come into operation without the specific approval of the Assembly.
We have a balanced package of measures to enhance co-operation, north and south. The bodies will operate within a clear framework of democratic accountability as defined in the agreement, supporting legislation and the procedures of the Assembly. The bodies, and any others that may be agreed in the council, will provide a foundation for close co-operation between the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government.
The order provides the statutory basis for the six agreed implementation bodies. In my view, and, I am sure, in the view of both the people of Northern Ireland and the


House, it is an important part of the path towards a political settlement in Northern Ireland which will, we all hope and pray, lead to peace. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: We support the order, and we shall not divide the House on it. We support it for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it was an important part of the Belfast agreement, and it is essential that all aspects of that agreement should be implemented in full. It is a matter of deep regret to Members on both sides of the House that certain aspects of the agreement are not being implemented at present.
I completely accept the Minister's apology for the lateness in our obtaining the documentation. The negotiations went on throughout the weekend, and we were satisfied with the key text. I shall quote briefly from it to record the important definition that gives us comfort that the order is the right way forward. It states that the arrangements—
an Assembly in Northern Ireland, a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, a British-Irish Council, and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland"—
are
interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the functions of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the other".
I know that the Minister will agree that that is a point worth underlining.
I have always favoured proceeding with all other aspects of the agreement, especially the north-south bodies, so that there could be absolutely no excuse for the lack of decommissioning of illegally held weapons. We want a clear message to emerge from the House tonight that the two Governments and all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland have fulfilled their responsibilities in full; and that there is now no reason why there should not be a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. Only one thing holds that back: that Sinn Fein-IRA have still not started to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives—not one gun nor one ounce of Semtex has been handed in.
The reason why I was pleased to learn over the weekend that the two Governments and the constitutional parties had reached a clear agreement on setting up the north-south bodies is that doing so removed any last hurdle or excuse that allowed Sinn Fein-IRA to say that they could not decommission yet because they were still waiting for this, that or the other, or because they were not convinced of the good faith of the British Government, the Irish Government, the Unionists, the Social Democratic and Labour party, or whoever they wanted to blame at that point. Once the order has been passed by the House of Commons today and by another place tomorrow, there will be no excuse.
The eyes of the world will be on Sinn Fein-IRA, watching to see whether they really meant what they said and signed up to on Good Friday last year; whether they have really renounced violence for good; and whether they will decommission their illegally held weapons. If they do not decommission, in my view and that of my hon. Friends, it is not possible for the Northern Ireland

Executive to be set up. It is not right or proper in a democracy for people to take ministerial office, with all the responsibilities that such a duty entails, while continuing to hold illegal weapons without any suggestion that they will be handed in. It would be quite unfair to expect constitutionally elected politicians who have never taken part in violence to take part in an Executive with such people.
I conclude by underlining the fact that the buck now stops with Sinn Fein-IRA. They must commence decommissioning, and the process must be verifiable and genuine. Only when that happens can we have a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, which many of us believe is long overdue.

Mr. David Trimble: As the Minister said, the order and the associated treaty give effect to agreements that were made between the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 18 December, although they were not formally approved until 15 February because of some outstanding business.
In their effect, the order and the treaty achieve something rather unique. Co-operation between states is a common feature of western Europe today, and co-operation between the two parts of Ireland has gone on for decades—indeed, the key elements were developed under the previous Stormont Administration. However, the treaty and the order go further in that they create implementation bodies—bodies in international law—to which each jurisdiction transfers functions as a means of carrying on a scheme of co-operation. There are six different areas of co-operation. The concept formed a central part of the agreement, we worked out the detail of the schemes in December and we are now giving effect to them. Therefore, the order marks a significant step forward in the implementation of the agreement, and embodies one of its chief characteristics.
Most of the documentation, which is lengthy and detailed, simply fleshes out the detail of what was agreed on 18 December. The 18 December documents are in the order, and further memoranda flesh out the situation in greater detail. There was difficulty with the particular legal concepts used and I am glad that, following much discussion, we got it right. However, it is interesting to note that the Northern Ireland Assembly will not have the power to create such bodies in the future. It may propose schemes for future co-operation, but only the House and the Government can exercise treaty-making powers. That is a rather cumbersome, roundabout way to proceed, but I think the Government are reluctant to create precedents that might be applied elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
We had one significant difficulty. It has been suggested in some quarters that the process would result in the creation of some freestanding bodies that would not be accountable or subject to any sort of veto or direction and would somehow continue if anything happened to the agreement. I am glad to say that it is clear from the agreement that that is not so. Article 8 of the treaty is sufficient to dispose of such claims, and the preamble to the treaty makes the situation absolutely clear.
As the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), said, the agreement states that all the arrangements—in particular the Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council and associated


schemes—are "interlocking and interdependent". One relies upon the other. The relationship between the particular bodies created by the order and the North-South Ministerial Council is also made absolutely clear. Hon. Members will find in each of the documents a sentence that states that, in exercising its functions, the body will act at all times in accordance with any directions— whether of a general or specific nature—given by the North-South Ministerial Council. That demonstrates the correct relationship between the bodies and the council.
The Minister quoted from material in the agreement that shows clearly the relationship between the council and the democratic bodies: the Assembly of Northern Ireland and the Oireachtas in the Irish Republic to which accountability then flows. This structure maintains democratic accountability and ensures that the operations will proceed in a way that is genuinely beneficial to both parties.
There is a continuing problem that was not apparent when we made the agreement on 18 December. Hon. Members will see it referred to on page 39, which deals with aquaculture and marine matters. We thought that we could include provisions regarding the Commissioners of Irish Lights but, subsequent to 18 December, it became clear that some quite complicated matters were involved. Hon. Members will see those references in paragraphs 7 and 7.1 on page 39, which state that the existing arrangements will continue until such time as more general United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland legislation can be brought forward.
The question remains as to what is the best way to cope with this issue. I was interested in some earlier comments about the British-Irish Council because I suspect that it might present a solution to the real practical problems that we encountered when addressing the question of lights. That matter might be best handled—as it is at present— on a British Isles basis. The British-Irish Council could be an effective way of dealing with the issue. That matter will be carried forward in further discussions within the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.
As the Minister said, our general approach has been to move as quickly as we can. Although it has taken from 18 December until now, we have spent that time doing serious work in order to produce all the material. It has been our intention throughout the past few months to move as quickly as possible to the point where we can say that everything that we can do to give life to the institutions of the agreement has been done. We have now reached that point. My colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party and I—and, to some extent, the House—will be able to say after tonight that everything we can do has been done.
All the institutional and structural arrangements provided for in the agreement, which are necessary for the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council, will be put in place and ready to go live as soon as the necessary conditions are present. That point relates to the one outstanding issue in the agreement on which there has, as yet, been no progress. I refer to the commitment of the paramilitary-related parties to the agreement to achieve the total disarmament of paramilitary groups. There has been no progress by any of those parties that have endorsed the agreement.
The one act of progress, which coincidentally took place on 18 December, was the first act of decommissioning by the Loyalist Volunteer Force, a precedent that was very welcome. The paramilitary parties to the agreement have, as yet, done nothing to implement the commitment that they made nearly a year ago. Until they do, there will not be sufficient confidence in the community to enable the agreement to proceed—nor ought it to proceed, when we consider simple justice and defence of the democratic principle. An important principle is at stake here—that of ensuring that we are proceeding on a sound basis that will ensure peace and democracy for the future.
I hope that it will be possible for that further step to be taken, sooner rather than later. I regret the Secretary of State's statement today. We tried very hard last week to have everything ready for 10 March, and as the Minister has said, discussions continued throughout the weekend. The order has been tabled and is being debated tonight so that everything will be ready for 10 March. It was therefore disappointing to hear the Secretary of State announce this afternoon that 10 March did not matter any more and that the Government will just forget about it. That demonstrates a slightly mistaken approach.
The Secretary of State should maintain the posture, as should we all, that we have the institutional arrangements sorted out, so from tonight, each and every day, we are ready to take whatever further steps we can as soon as the necessary confidence-building measures occur. To announce, as the Government have done today, "We shall not bother because we have given up hope for this week and we'll forget the matter for another couple of weeks," is the wrong approach and undermines the efforts that we have been making in the past week.
I hope that the Secretary of State will think again about the approach to adopt in these matters and focus on the need for confidence-building measures to be taken. We must focus pressure on those who are refusing to act, wasting time and delaying progress, because as from tonight, everything that can be done from our point of view has been done. We hope that the arrangements will work out well in practice—experience, of course, will determine that—but the arrangements are flexible and can be developed and altered in the light of experience.
I look forward to the time when we can operate this part of the agreement together with all the other parts and, through them, change people's view not only of north-south co-operation but of how society operates in Northern Ireland. At the end of the day, we must remember that the arrangements provide the potential to transform circumstances in Northern Ireland and give life to those hopes that were engendered nearly a year ago by the Belfast agreement.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Liberal Democrats also welcome the order. Politics is as much about processes as anything else. To put it another way, "It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it." That lesson has clearly been learned by the British and Irish Governments, judging by what is being presented to us today.
If we compare the situation now with that of 14 years ago, when the last great effort in cross-border co-operation—the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985—was


implemented, we realise that co-operation between London and Dublin was the exception, and now it is the rule. Direct involvement with the parties in Northern Ireland was rare then, but now those very parties are leading the process. Back then, the public were shut out of decision making; now, they are decision making— through the referendum and election last year, which continue to determine policy this year. Those are crucial changes, and they have made the settlement process possible. Part of the Good Friday agreement included the repeal of the 1985 agreement. Can the Minister give any details on a possible time scale for that repeal?
The message, "It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it", must not be lost on Sinn Fein. To some extent, the question is not whether the IRA decommissions, but how—particularly when it starts and its time frame for fulfilling that requirement. If it starts now and finishes by April 2000, the consequences will be far better for everybody, including the republicans, than if it starts a year from now.
The official Opposition have once again highlighted the impatience that many of us feel when some, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), are working so hard to make the agreement work, yet there is no sign whatever of the IRA decommissioning. Of course, we will all continue to wait until decommissioning begins, although the worry about whether it will happen at all concerns us most. I think that Gerry Adams knows that very well. We are optimistic, but can hardly be blamed for becoming impatient for some progress on decommissioning.
The order is very detailed and thorough. We are glad that it has been worked out so thoroughly, especially concerning the bodies on food safety, trade and business development, and with regard to special European Union programmes, which have been drawn up very specifically indeed.
I would like to raise two other points with the Minister. First, every politician knows that the most important person in any office is the secretary. To control someone's diary, their post and their phone is effectively to control their life. The second most important person is the person who pays the secretary. That vital role needs to be remembered in funding the new bodies.
The order makes it clear that six new bodies are to be funded by money allocated by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The agreement between the two Governments announced today suggests that they should be funded in accordance with the provisions of the multi-party agreement, on the ground that it constitutes a necessary public function—as set out on page 11 of the order. How will the balance of funding between the Belfast Assembly and the Dublin Government be addressed?
Presumably the two bodies should put in something like equal amounts, otherwise one may have undue influence on the day-to-day operation of one or more of the sixbodies. Is that the plan? By allowing the Belfast Assembly to choose how much it allocates, we may be giving it power to pay the secretaries more or less than Dublin. I am suggesting not that the Belfast Assembly should not have such a power, but that it should consult Dublin before it decides how much to pay. I can see frictions developing if that has not been clearly established. Similarly, I urge Dublin to consult Belfast on the matter.
Secondly, I am glad that the body dealing with language is to cater for all languages as well as Irish. It is good that the rich diversity of culture and heritage on the island of Ireland is so celebrated. Will any other languages be specifically catered for? There are more than 5,000 people from ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland, and no doubt more in the Republic. Some of those, such as the Chinese community, may wish to benefit from help in conserving or promoting their language. Can the functions of the language body be extended to help such people? May I stress that this is not special pleading on behalf of the Estonian community in Northern Ireland, or, indeed, the four or five people who still speak Estonian on the island.
We often hear the phrase, "The devil is in the detail." On this occasion, it would be more appropriate to say that the Minister is in the detail. His formulation seems sensible, consistent and empowering. That does not necessarily make him a saint, but it does clearly make him a very important player in the process. I praise him for the sure-footed and consistent way in which he has brought matters forward.
Despite the very assiduous efforts made by many people, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, in attempting to achieve the important breakthroughs for which we were hoping by 10 March, it is probably smart to delay the procedure. Having said that, we have a very clear date—29 March—by which we must have made some progress. The clock is ticking. The reprieve is not a big one, but it gives us a chance to make this process work without the pressure that we may have felt over the preceding few days.
I have got to believe that, as the Minister says, with determination and courage, we shall reach agreement. Surely, now that we have come so far, we can get the last little bit sorted out. There are some hard times now, especially for those who have yet to show some good will with regard to decommissioning, but just think of the good times to follow. I, for one, am hoping for a happy Easter.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), I am looking forward to a happy Easter. I hope that it will materialise.
I welcome the order and the implementation bodies. They are very important for their symbolic and practical effects on the communities in Ireland, and especially for the nationalist community in the north of Ireland, which will no longer feel cut off from the rest of the island of Ireland.
The implementation bodies are very practical, and yet one wonders why other implementation bodies were not involved. Of course, one does not always know what is included under an umbrella such as food safety. There is BSE in both parts of the island; would that have been covered by it? Does trade and business include all-Ireland tourism and the possibility of a Northern Irish tourist board?
On the issue of food and food safety, remarkably, although we are happy to talk later about aquaculture, we are not prepared to talk about an implementation body for agriculture—and yet it would seem that farmers in both parts of Ireland have far more in common with one another than they have, for example, with the far richer


farmers of England, with its large farms and large estates. Although some of the hill farmers may have some fellow feeling with many of the smaller farmers in Ireland, there is a real problem.
Rural depopulation is also a real problem in both parts of Ireland. It is difficult for small farms to maintain families when other smaller rural industries have not been built up to an extent that would enable farmers to work part-time on their farms and to supplement that income with sufficient income from other sources. There are limits to what one can do with bed-and-breakfast and other, perhaps somewhat more imaginative, schemes, but that is not reflected in the agreement.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that from these small beginnings, other things might develop, and perhaps some of these issues will develop in that way. I hope that they will, because on many of these economic issues, the two parts of Ireland have more in common with each other than they have with this island. They could benefit from further European Union programmes, as they are benefiting at present on both sides of the border.
Much has been made of the extent of progress so far. Like everyone else, I should like to see the Executive in operation, and I should like to see the Assembly meeting and debating, but there are problems on both sides. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has a problem in how far his party is prepared to go in accepting Sinn Fein into an Assembly. Sinn Fein, equally, has a difficulty in the problems and the questions that it is being posed by Unionists in the Assembly about how far it can go. I believe that neither side really understands the other's problems. Certainly, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has a fixed position, from which he would find it difficult to move. I understand that.
Equally, the representatives of Sinn Fein have their difficulties. They claim that they cannot move on decommissioning because they do not control the decision making. That is something that some people doubt, but I think that we must take some of those statements at face value and in good faith. However, it is patently obvious that they are concerned that if three bullets, or whatever, are given up under decommissioning, that will be seen as an act of surrender.
It might be argued that that is not the case, and that it is a gesture, a magnanimous step forward or a sign. However, sadly, that is not how the representatives of Sinn Fein see it. Further, they are concerned that if a concession is made, it will mean that there will be not a trickle, as has been happening, but a flood of volunteers moving from supporting the Provisional IRA to bodies such as Continuity IRA and the Real IRA, which are outside the process and do not accept the agreement. It is a very difficult situation for the Official Unionists and for Sinn Fein, and we must understand that on both sides of the argument.
We all hope that movement can be made by both sides. Perhaps the meeting in Washington after the St. Patrick's day celebrations will result in a damascene conversion by both the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). We do not know. However, we know that if people continue pushing, asking one side or the other to do something that is not within its power to deliver and accusing it of being in bad faith because of that, we shall be in a difficult and dangerous position.
I hope that at the meeting on 29 March, we get progress, and that the parties on either side will, to use current parlance, go to the wire, or go to the precipice and then draw back. I hope also that no one involved will seek to push either side over the precipice. That would be a recipe for disaster for all the people of Northern Ireland, for the island of Ireland and for all these islands.

Mr. William Thompson: There have been many political developments in Northern Ireland over the past year. There is no doubt that the agreement that was reached caused much division within Northern Ireland, and particularly within the party of which I am a member.
I have always taken the position that I oppose the agreement and that when the agreement is being implemented, I must, out of conscience, reject that implementation. Therefore, I must disagree with the implementation bodies that it is proposed to set up under the agreement.
I believe, of course, that the terrorists should be so defeated that they will be unable to carry out any more of their acts. That, ultimately, is the only way to defeat terrorism, whether it comes from republicanism or from the Unionist side of the divide.
I believe that the agreement is a device to try to persuade paramilitaries that they will get something of what they want. It is thought that if they get some of what they want, perhaps they will desist from their paramilitary activities. I believe that, rather than making them desist from paramilitary activity, the agreement is more likely to encourage them to keep at it. Therefore I have not supported the agreement, nor will I.
I feel that by setting up the cross-border bodies, the agreement gives us, to a great extent, joint sovereignty in Northern Ireland. At least three of the six implementation bodies will have considerable power. The food safety implementation body will have a long list of powers. If that body gets off the ground, will a food safety agency for Northern Ireland be needed, or will the food safety implementation body take over that function? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
The powers of the trade and business development body seem to be extensive, as do those of the special EU programmes body. I note that the bodies seem to have different types of government. There are to be three boards—one for trade and business, one for language and one for marine matters. However, the food safety board will only be advisory.
The other two implementation bodies—inland waterways and special EU programmes—will be run by chief executives, similar to the way in which agencies are currently run. As far as I can see, we have little control over agencies, and we do not have much control over boards. What we are setting up are six more quangos. It will be difficult for the Assembly to control their activities.
As we have heard tonight, the implementation bodies are likely to grow and acquire more powers, and we are likely to have more implementation bodies. Indeed, the agreement that was signed referred to 12 implementation bodies. Only three are included among the initial six, so we can be sure that those who wish to detach Northern


Ireland from the United Kingdom will be pressing hard to get as many more implementation bodies as they can. Slowly but surely, Northern Ireland will start to be eased out of the United Kingdom.
I cannot say much more that is useful about these matters. I have taken my stand and I must maintain it. I know that some people are disappointed that nothing dramatic will happen on 10 March. I never thought that anything dramatic would happen on that date. I shall be surprised if there is any progress on an Executive on 29 March. Those who believe that an Executive will be set up in Northern Ireland who will work and provide good government in Northern Ireland are living in a dream. I do not believe that it will happen.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: If the hon. Gentleman's stand is set in stone, what can anybody ever do to shift the stone? Unless people begin to give and take, there can never be a solution.

Mr. Thompson: Unionists are not against co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. One thing that I dislike about the implementation bodies is that they are always mentioned in respect of north and south. I do not believe in north and south; I believe in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There is no reason why we cannot have good co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but we do not need implementation bodies such as these.
We are to have those implementation bodies only because we are trying to buy off the terrorists and make them believe that they are going down the way to achieving what they are aiming at—a united Ireland. I do not see why I should encourage them in the process in which they think they are involved.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Although his case is not one that any of us accept, the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) argues it honestly. He is exceedingly pessimistic about what he considers to be the likely failure of Assembly representatives to control quangos. Amidst all that gloom, he ought to express a bit of optimism about the calibre of the representatives and what I reckon to be their determination to control quangos. That is how I see the Scottish Parliament and people who will be elected to it.
Although there are pronounced differences, there are numerous similarities between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we in Scotland see the quangos coming under more critical examination from the Members of the Holyrood Parliament. I would hope that the same will eventually be the case for the Assembly in Belfast. The hon. Member for West Tyrone is too pessimistic in that regard. He can be gloomy at times in his prognostications, but let us have a wee bit of optimism as well—the kind of optimism that we are showing vis-à-vis the Scottish Parliament.
I was struck by a couple of comments that were made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—

Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend described the speech of the hon. Member for West Tyrone

as honest. No doubt it was, but was not it also highly dangerous? The alternative to the agreement is almost certainly what we saw last night on BBC 2:tit-for-tat atrocities—one committed by the IRA followed by another committed by some loyalist murder gang. Those who oppose the agreement live in Northern Ireland and represent Northern Ireland constituencies, so they know better than we do that we will go back to the terror and counter-terror of 25 years if the agreement is destroyed on the ground.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) responds to that intervention, I should say that we must return to a discussion of the order before the House.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful for your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr Winnick) said in his brief intervention. Might I say that I was struck by the fact that everyone who has spoken in the debate has referred to how the decommissioning impasse affects all those other developments? I compliment my right hon. Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues on the work that they have done to move us this far.
I was also struck by the toughly worded editorial on decommissioning in today's edition of The Irish Times, which says that
from the beginning the IRA has not moved a millimetre. In contrast, the Ulster Unionists have time and again indicated their willingness to seek compromise. At Oslo, Mr Trimble made it clear he was not seeking a surrender of weapons to the RUC or the British army. Mr Ken Maginnis spoke a fortnight ago of giving the IRA 'wriggle room'.
It would be interesting to hear a definition of "wriggle room".
The editorial continues:
This weekend again, Mr Trimble has declared that if the IRA sends 'a signal' to General John de Chastelain and if the general conveys that to him, then the process will go forward.
Like everyone else, I sincerely hope that such a signal will be given.
Let me ask a couple of practical questions, which are prompted to some extent by what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann had to say. Paragraph 2.1(b) of part 4 of annexe 1 states that
the views of Northern Ireland Ministers
will be
represented to the British Government to contribute to the UK's negotiating strategy
on topics relating to structural funds. I have made my views clear to Foreign Office Ministers—in a very public way; I have not been leaking. I have said that, in the negotiations concerning enlargement, it is necessary to ensure that the peace initiative is maintained, whatever happens to the structural and cohesion funds. I have made that known to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), the Minister responsible for European affairs, in two public formal evidence sessions of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have also said that the international Ireland fund must be retained.
I think I am right in saying that the north of Ireland and the Irish Republic are divided 80:20 on the peace initiative. That initiative must continue. The way in which


objective 1 status is defined means that Northern Ireland falls outwith the criteria. I think that there is a specific criterion of 76 per cent. of gross national product per capita, but given the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland it is very important for the campaign to be conducted by our Ministers. I believe that there is a role for those on the body that we are discussing in relation to the negotiations that will continue in Brussels over the next two or three years.
The word "concordat" arises in this context. Ministerial colleagues of the First Minister will need to play a decisive role in the negotiations. It is possible that they will be unable to negotiate on the peace initiative, the international Ireland fund and objective 1 funds; but those Ministers—those represented on this implementation body—will have an important part to play in UK-wide negotiations with other member states of the union on the retention of those important funds. None of us must lose sight of the importance of the European Commission's structural fund plans to Northern Ireland.
I said that I would be brief, but let me say a little about marine matters. I was struck by what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said about the Irish lights. He is right: historically, there has been a remarkably good relationship between our system and the system pertaining in the Irish Republic. I had hoped that a recent order for a ship for the Irish republican lights would be won by a shipyard on the lower Clyde, but it was not to be. I believe that another ship is on order, which I hope will come our way—but I must stop such parochial pleadings.
An important development is taking place in respect of the development of such a body. The document that we have been given says that both United Kingdom and Irish legislation will be required in order for a body to become the general lighthouse authority for the island of Ireland.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) would perhaps say that that was another quango, but let me assure him that the lights as they operate in mainland Britain, in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic perform a useful service highly efficiently. I would expect that efficiency to be maintained, as is mentioned in the document, under the new general lighthouse authority. I look forward to the legislation being introduced in the House. As someone who represents a maritime community and who has a concern for Northern Ireland, I would want actively to engage in the matter.
I asked a question relating to the British-Irish Council. One or two of my colleagues thought that I was being facetious when I said that Glasgow would be an excellent locus for the secretariat of such a body. I say again that the Nordic Council has a fixed locus, with a secretariat of about 70.
It is all right the Minister saying that Stranraer and the Isle of Man are campaigning. I put my cards on the table. If there is to be a fixed location for the British-Irish Council, with respect to the hon. Members for West Tyrone and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), it cannot be in Belfast. It cannot be in Dublin or London. Glasgow is an excellent choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) will no doubt agree with me without intervening in my short speech. Liverpool has a case, but it has to be Glasgow, as the Lord Provost has suggested recently. The Minister needs to take that special pleading on board, as do all.
The document refers to rivers and their tributaries. The development of aquaculture could be an important subject—the right hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested it—for the British-Irish Council. We have much to learn from each other in relation to fish farming. Serious mistakes have been made in Scandinavia and in Scotland. I hope that, if the aquaculture industry is to develop in Northern Ireland, the people involved can avoid some of the mistakes that we have made in Scotland. Where those marine matters are influenced by a reformed common fisheries policy, we have again to think in terms of a concordat relating to maritime matters being developed between Ministers of the Assembly and Ministers in Whitehall.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said at the outset that there was quite a lot in common between Northern Ireland and Scotland. That is true in many ways. A great deal more in common will rear its head over the next few years as the Scottish National party increases its strength. He will find out then what nationalism in the Northern Ireland context and the Scottish context really means in political terms. His education is not complete, but it will be.
Like everyone else, I have received the documentation fairly late in the day. I have had an opportunity to glance through it. I must confess that I am not yet clear as to how the bodies are formed, how many persons will be on the bodies and how they are to be chosen. Undoubtedly, the Minister will clear up those matters for me in his reply.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was clear that the quasi-autonomous national Government organisations that will be created will be under Assembly control. That will depend on whether the Assembly is controllable enough to agree on what should be done with the quangos; I am not so sure that it will be. There is a slight chance of friction on the matter. Ultimately, it will all depend on whether the IRA will co-operate in surrendering its weapons. I see precious little sign of that.
The particulars of the agreement, on page 10 of the documentation, state that
an Assembly in Northern Ireland, a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, a British-Irish Council, and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland … are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the functions of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the other".
My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann said that, if the Assembly fell—or if it never comes into operation, for whatever reasons—the cross-border bodies would cease to exist or never come into existence. Interestingly, when the subject was discussed during passage of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Minister was rather coy about it. I hope that he will not be quite so reticent about it today, and will confirm that my right hon. Friend's comments on it were absolutely accurate. Many people in Northern Ireland are fed up with fooling around at the edges of the issue and should like to have a very clear statement on it from Ministers.
I should like to deal with the matter of inland waterways—the four functions of the
management, maintenance, development and restoration of the inland navigable waterway system"—
which are mainly, but not only, canals, and chiefly for the tourist trade, either internal or external.
The order mentions the Shannon-Erne, the Ulster canal, the wider Shannon-Erne system and the other waterways—such as the Royal canal, the Grand canal, and the Barrow and Lagan systems. Interestingly, it includes also navigation on the lower Bann. The lower Bann is a long, long way from the border. Although it is a major waterway and has considerable potential for the tourist trade, I cannot understand of what interest it might be in the implementation of any cross-border body. If the Republic wished to be difficult about the matter, it could starve the river of any sums that need to be spent on it, to the benefit of its own areas and the cross-border areas. As the lower Bann runs through a chunk of my constituency, I should not take very kindly to that happening.
When I looked up the order's references to repeals and transfers, I discovered that the new bodies will be taking on liabilities—such as the liability of compensation— powers of land entry and certain powers in fisheries. It is clear that the longer-term intention is to take control of all inland waters that could be used for navigation. In many ways, and for a number of reasons, I find that prospect disturbing, especially as there will be three regional divisions—northern, western and eastern. Perhaps we could be told exactly which areas each of the subdivisions will cover, and why it is necessary to have the subdivisions.
The inland waterways body will have all the powers "necessary or incidental" to the exercise of its functions. The powers are not specified, but I think that they are probably stated in preceding legislation. I noted that the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which the House recently passed, is mentioned in the order. The new body would assume control of various aspects of that order— such as the power of the Department to carry out works, canal schemes, powers of maintenance, waterways, general powers of the Department, provisions of the drainage order, and all the rest of it. Those are wide powers. When they are applied to the Foyle area and Bann navigation, considerable sums of public money could be involved. Many people will not be happy with a quango controlling them. They are already quangoised to some extent, but the existing quangos at least have elected members and members of local councils.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred to aquaculture and marine matters. That aspect of the order is interesting and involves the Foyle Fisheries Commission, which has a long history. I made a speech on it in the House some years ago. If hon. Members are interested in the body's roots, they should look up that speech. It is a cross-border body that was set up to protect the game fishing, mainly salmon fishing, in the Foyle, which is a valuable commercial and angling fishery.
The order says that the powers are to be extended to Carlingford lough. I do not know of any salmon rivers or game fish rivers of any description flowing into Carlingford lough. I do not know the area well, but I do

not remember many of my game fishing friends taking expeditions to that area. I do not see the point of that. It must have something to do with navigation and lights. Some navigation aids in Lough Foyle have always been under the control of the Londonderry harbour authority.
Lough Foyle is not a suitable place for the development of aquaculture and salmon farming because it is shallow. It is a valuable wild salmon fishery and it would be crazy to do anything to damage it. We know what has happened to sea trout in the west of Scotland and down the west coast of Ireland and the problems of salmon fanning in Norway. There have also been recent infestations in salmon farms in Scotland. We do not want any of that; we have seen quite enough of it. I apologise to the Scots, but I should prefer it if they kept it at home.

Dr. Godman: That is my point. Any body with responsibility for such shallow water should refuse all licence applications for any kind of fish farming.

Mr. Ross: We do not need the cross-border body to do that. The Foyle Fisheries Commission is perfectly capable and has dealt with that.
The Foyle has quite a large shell fishery; we also have the largest eel fishery in Europe. All those matters, formerly internal to Northern Ireland, will now be cross-border matters. The new body is to have 12 members. An earlier draft said that there were to be three from the Republic and the Carlingford area and three from Northern Ireland, with the same proportions in the Foyle fisheries organisation. The Foyle is currently run by civil servants from Belfast and civil servants from the Republic. At least that was 50:50. Now the Unionist population will be in a minority of four against eight. Some people may say that that is a good deal, but I say forget it. It is a dangerous situation.
Those who are anxious about the powers over discharge can look them up in this year's Northern Ireland water order. We are handing over to the new body all powers over discharges into the river system in one of the most valuable salmon fisheries in Northern Ireland—indeed, one of the most valuable in these islands. The new quango will not be able to do a better job than has been done in the past. The Foyle Fisheries Commission is not one of my favourite bodies, but it has improved recently because it has some money. I fear that the proposals are a retrograde step and I do not welcome them. It is foolish of the Government to pursue them.
I could say a great deal more about food safety. My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) has mentioned some of the issues. There are issues relating to trade and business and how a language body will be nothing but an attempt to increase the use of Irish Gaelic. That has not worked in the Republic since 1920.

Mr. Trimble: indicated dissent

Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend may shake his head, but most of the money will go to the not very many people who wish to learn the language. Minority languages are a residue of the past—they are dying and being superseded by modern languages. The languages of the future are the languages of technology—English, German and Japanese. Minor languages can be sent off to the academics,


universities and historians, who may want to look at ancient history. As far as useful everyday trade is concerned, forget it—no one really cares.
We are running out of time, and I want the Minister to have time to reply—although I could say a great deal more on a matter which I do not like any more now than I did 12 months ago.

Mr. Paul Murphy: With the leave of the House,Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply; there is much in the debate to reply to. First, I thank the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) for his support today, and for accepting my apologies for the way in which we have had to rush the documentation.
The right hon. Gentleman referred—as did the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—to the interdependency of the bodies in term of the agreement. Both were right—it was clear in the talks, and in the agreement itself, that the agreement is a package. The success of the agreement depends on the success of all the different parts of the package. It will work only if all the institutions and parts of the agreement work as well. That is why paragraph 5 of the declaration of support and the preamble to the treaty have embedded the principle in the treaty and the accompanying order.
As all of us have said throughout the process, the Government are not planning for failure—that is not an option. We have said that if there is no Assembly, there will be no North-South Ministerial Council. Each depends upon the other.
It is clear that the implementation bodies could not continue to function as envisaged in the agreement. Arrangements for the Executive functions that they carried out would have to be reviewed. For example, the Foyle Fisheries Commission has been operated as a cross-border body for many years, and doubtless will continue so to do.

Mr. Thompson: The Minister qualified what he said about the implementation bodies when he said that they could not continue in that form. Does that mean that the Government could continue them in a different form?

Mr. Murphy: I said—pretty clearly, I thought—that where there are examples of cross-border co-operation that have operated for many years and will do so in the months ahead, the Government will look at sensible arrangements by which that co-operation would continue. The North-South Ministerial Council, to which the bodies are accountable, would disappear if there were no Assembly. Similarly, the bodies envisaged in the agreement would disappear.
The right hon. Members for Bracknell and for Upper Bann referred to the importance of progress on decommissioning. With the exception of decommissioning—the Police Commission and the Criminal Justice Commission are due to report— progress has been made. The Assembly has been set up, with 108 Members elected to it; the north-south bodies dealt with today have been agreed; the British-Irish Council has come into effect; the civic forum has been established; constitutional change has been agreed in the Republic of Ireland; the Human Rights Commission has been set up; and we are

advertising for the appointments to the Equality Commission. In addition, 240 prisoners have, under the agreement, been let out of the Maze prison. A great deal of the agreement has been established.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann said that the order marked a significant step forward, and he was right. He also emphasised, rightly, the interdependency of the different parts of the agreement, and the important issue of confidence between political parties and communities in Northern Ireland. We must enter negotiations on the basis of confidence as the remainder of the month progresses. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the arrangement is unique in Europe and possibly the world, but it was very important for the agreement.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred to funding arrangements and to the 1985 agreement. That will cease to have effect on the entry into force of the British-Irish agreement on devolution day. He asked whether other languages would be dealt with, in addition to Irish and Ulster Scots. That is clearly a matter for the North-South Ministerial Council. I cannot guarantee that there will be an Estonian language body, but I am sure that his various points will be taken into account. He also referred to the importance of decommissioning, which will clearly be a priority for the parties over the next couple of weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) welcomed the order because of the symbolic effect on the nationalist community, and he is absolutely right about that, but the order is significant because of the effect of the bodies on the whole of Northern Ireland, whether nationalist or Unionist. The bodies will improve the quality of life of women and men throughout the island of Ireland.
Tourism in Northern Ireland is dealt with uniquely by a publicly owned limited company. There is provision for co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic on the common agricultural policy, animal and plant health policy research and rural development. As the months and years go by, it will be a matter for the North-South Ministerial Council whether it wants to extend the roles of implementation bodies in those areas; at present it does not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North rightly referred to the difficulties that people in Northern Ireland experience in their own communities. Those difficulties are not confined to one side or the other. There is no doubt that political parties and leaders—not least, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—have to understand what matters to their own supporters and ensure that they can take people with them. That applies to both sides of the equation.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said that there was a division in Northern Ireland concerning the agreement. There is indeed: 72 per cent. said yes and 28 per cent. said no. That is the division in Northern Ireland. I do not agree with his view on the Good Friday agreement. People voted for implementation bodies, which by no means constitute joint sovereignty.
There is nothing wrong with having different types of boards, as long as they are properly accountable. Control over the boards is far better if they are accountable to an elected body of 108 people from Northern Ireland,


representing other people in Northern Ireland, than if they are accountable to me, a south Wales Member of Parliament.
The agreement was based on the principle of consent. Talk about the bodies growing into a united Ireland, and all the rest of it, does not square with the concept of consent. The fears are unjustified. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide on their constitutional future, and that is the clear basis of the agreement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) brought his Scottish experience to bear. He talked about how quangos in Scotland will be more accountable to the Scottish Parliament than they are to the Scottish Office today. That applies to Northern Ireland as well.
My hon. Friend talked about the editorial in TheIrish Timesand rightly said that no one is talking about surrender when decommissioning is discussed. No one wants surrender of anything. We are talking about fulfilling the terms of the agreement. The independent commission on decommissioning under General John de Chastelain will play a hugely significant role.
My hon. Friend also referred to the work of the European Union body that has been set up. It will work alongside UK Ministers, and Irish Ministers when appropriate. He referred to the significance of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Administration in Northern Ireland in months to come, in the negotiations for European funding. I can tell him and the House that the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and myself visited Brussels and Bonn recently, where we presented the case for Northern Ireland. That case will continue to be presented by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and myself on every possible occasion. After devolution, Ministers will be appointed within the Northern Ireland Administration who will have responsibility for that. Those of us in the British Government will work alongside those Ministers to ensure that the best deal is obtained for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) obviously does not like the order very much. The details of the new bodies are available for him to examine. He referred to interdependency and we all agree with him on that, but I cannot agree with his view on the Celtic languages. I would like him to visit my constituency in south Wales, which is very much an English-language constituency but where Welsh is now being taught to every pupil, whether or not they have Welsh-speaking parents. There is nothing wrong with the great diversity and richness of different languages and cultures, whether in Northern Ireland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere. Indeed, there is a growing demand. I was in the Isle of Man recently, where Manx is being taught to the children, even though it has ceased to be used as a language for some time. That enriches our culture and our lives.
There is overwhelming support in the House for the order. It sets up strand 2 of the agreement and brings into effect the north-south arrangements that are an integral part of the Good Friday agreement. Those arrangements, and the other matters that I have mentioned, will ensure— I sincerely hope and pray—that between now and Easter
the people in Northern Ireland, through their political leaders, will find the solution and enable devolution to go ahead. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on-Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Northern Ireland (Modifications of Enactments— No. 1) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Protection of Children Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a)any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act; and
(b)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Eric Forth: I would have thought that on an occasion such as this the Minister might have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is the opportunity for the House to consider the financial implications of a private Member's Bill that has received its Second Reading. As I recall, none of the financial implications of the Bill was examined on Second Reading, and that makes this money resolution debate that much more important and germane as it gives the House the opportunity to examine in more detail the financial implications of the Bill.
I have glanced through the Bill and identified four areas of potential additional expenditure that it may require. I shall examine each in turn so that the Minister has an opportunity to let the House know what the financial implications are so that it can take a view. The first area is, self-evidently, costs arising in the Department of Health. That issue arises immediately from clause 1, which states:
The Secretary of State shall keep a list of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with children.
I presume that there will be a cost implication within the Department of Health in the maintenance of such a list. That is especially true as one examines the provisions of clause 2, which lays a number of responsibilities on the Secretary of State, including determining the references, provisionally including individuals on the list, inviting observations and confirming an individual's inclusion on the list. All of those activities imply a process within the Department of building up and maintaining the list and


suggest that an underpinning of bureaucracy and officials will be required to fulfil all the different functions outlined. It would be useful to hear from the Minister about the extent to which his Department will require additional officials to carry out the responsibilities laid on it by clause 2.
I shall come later to the tribunal, which I suspect will add the biggest single extra cost. First, the next additional element of cost arises from clause 5, which refers to the additional grounds for prohibiting or restricting employment with regard to the Department for Education and Employment. I had some passing experience of these matters when I was responsible for List 99 at the Department for some years.
I believe that clause 5(2)(c), which refers to
the grounds that the persons concerned are not fit and proper persons to be employed as teachers or in such work as is mentioned",
considerably widens the scope that has traditionally been available through List 99—always a relatively narrowly focused mechanism that was rightly concerned with ensuring that people who had committed some offence would, after due consideration by the Department, be put on the list and barred from teaching.
I suspect that clause 5 gives rise to the possibility that much wider consideration will be needed, and that implies considerable additional effort by the Department and its officials. What extra cost does the Minister believe will fall on the Department for Education and Employment over and above the cost of the existing List 99?
The next heading that I have identified as involving almost certain additional expenditure falls within clause 8, which is titled:
Searches of both lists under Part V of Police Act 1997
The clause describes additional new requirements, which implies additional costs for the police service. Those costs should be laid before us so that we may consider them.
I have identified three distinct areas of additional cost in the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment and the police.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Has the right hon. Gentleman read the regulatory impact assessment that accompanied the Bill, and which dealt with all those issues?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for being helpful so far into the debate. He might or might not accept a bit of friendly advice from me—if he had done the House the courtesy of rising to move his money resolution and explaining what lay behind it, he might have truncated the proceedings. If he wants to do it back to front, that is entirely up to him. Whether or not I have read any document is neither here nor there. [Interruption.] This is a debate, and it is the occasion on which the House of Commons has an opportunity to consider these matters.

Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Idiot.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The House must listen to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forth: If the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) is moved to shout "idiot",

he will not help his colleagues, who are anxious to get home. Each time he says "idiot", he will add a considerable number of minutes to my speech. I invite him to think a little more carefully before he does that again because he will earn no brownie points from his hon. Friends.
I shall now address briefly—albeit not quite as briefly as I had originally intended—the main item in the Bill that is likely to cause extra expenditure. The provisions for the tribunal must surely require considerable extra expenditure, not only because of the requirements set out in the clause, but because of those that are usefully set out in some detail in the schedule to the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister were to explain in some detail the possible elements of expenditure.
Not only does the schedule contain the usual provisions that one expects in setting up a tribunal—provisions relating to the president, the panels of persons, the process of appointment and so on—but there are provisions relating to meetings and training, which one might have thought would require a considerable amount of on-going bureaucratic commitment, to say nothing of provisions relating to staff and accommodation required by the tribunal and also to remuneration and expenses. The schedule helpfully spells out that:
The Secretary of State may pay to the President, and to any other person in respect of his service as a member of the Tribunal, such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
I accept that that is clearly a provisional arrangement, but even at this stage the Government should be able to give us some idea of the scale of remuneration and expenses for the tribunal that they have in mind. I doubt whether even the Government would want to embark on such a project without any idea of the costs it entails.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Ministers believe that the costs of an appeal tribunal can be met within current provision for Departments—the regulatory impact assessment mentions a figure of £500,000 shared between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. However, my right hon. Friend shares my perception that the fact that costs can be met within current provision does not mean that they should not be subject to scrutiny and explicitly approved by the House.

Mr. Forth: Like my hon. Friend, I always thought that that was the point of a money resolution. It appears to have escaped Labour Members, but my hon. Friend and I share the view that a money resolution debate is a vital part of the mechanism for the proper scrutiny and consideration of a Bill—especially given that it is a private Member's Bill and none of the matters currently being considered were touched on during Second Reading. The fact that figures may or may not exist in a document is no excuse for them not to be properly considered on the Floor of the House and put on the record. That is why the Minister's contribution should be helpful.
On the matter of attendance allowances, the schedule to the Bill states:
The Secretary of State may pay such allowances for the purpose of or in connection with the attendance of persons at the Tribunal".
That could become a substantial item of expenditure, depending on the view taken by the Government of the volume of business that the Tribunal might attract and the


number of persons who might attend the tribunal and be paid attendance allowances. Past experience of tribunals supports the assertion that such allowances will become a substantial sum.
The money resolution almost certainly contains a wide range of potential additional expenditure: departmental expenditure in two Departments of State; probable expenditure on the part of the police service; and, not least, expenditure resulting from the activities of the tribunal. The House will want to hear the Minister's remarks on all of those item before it is fully satisfied that the expenditure is properly undertaken in connection with the purposes of the Bill. The House will then want to consider whether or not to approve the money resolution, having only recently given the Bill a Second Reading.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I must correct the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on one point. He expressed concern that I had not moved the money resolution. It is normal for money resolutions to be moved by Ministers, but I should point out that Government Whips are Ministers.
Much of our time tonight could have been spared if the right hon. Gentleman had read the regulatory impact assessment. It is quite clear from his contribution that, unfortunately, he has not had the opportunity to read the assessment, in which we set out in some detail most of the issues that he raised in the House this evening. He will certainly be aware of the purpose of the Bill and what it seeks to do because he took part in the Second Reading debate only last week. We welcomed his contribution then, as we do tonight.
I shall try to respond to some of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns about the money resolution. The Bill creates an obligation upon the Secretary of State to maintain a list of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children and allows other organisations to refer names to the Department of Health list in certain circumstances. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is presently no statutory requirement on child care organisations to refer to the list or to check names against the present Department of Health consultancy index. The Bill will change that arrangement. Once included on the list, the individual concerned will be prevented from obtaining employment in certain positions.
Additional costs associated with the establishment and operation of the appeals tribunal will fall on the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. The tribunal will hear all appeals from people in the child care and health service fields against inclusion on the Department of Health list. It will deal also with appeals from List 99, which is a similar list operated by the Department for Education and Employment.
The right hon. Gentleman was correct in identifying that extra costs will fall on the Department of Health in operating a scheme which, due to the expansion that we envisage, will process an increasing number of checks. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that those additional costs will be met by the Department from within existing budgets, and therefore are not affected by the term of the money resolution.
However, costs will be incurred by the creation and administration of the tribunal system, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The estimated costs associated with the appeals tribunal, which we have identified, are set out fully in the regulatory impact assessment, and we estimate that they will be in the region of £500,000.
The purpose of the Bill is clear and simple: it introduces the mechanism of an appeals tribunal and widens accessibility and scope. Both of those aims have been broadly welcomed by all child care organisations and by the House, which gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. In simple terms, the money resolution that we are debating will authorise the necessary expenditure relating to the establishment of this new appeals tribunal, and I urge the House to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

PETITIONS

Conscientious Objection

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have the honour of presenting a petition in support of the right conscientiously to object to the military portion of taxes.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Sheweth that at present though Parliament recognises the right of individuals to conscientiously object to personally fighting in combat, there is no right at present for a citizen who, for religious or moral reasons, objects to having the monies they pay in taxes used for military purposes, to pay that money into a separate fund that would be used for the promotion of peace. We believe that at the beginning of a new millennium Britain should both recognise the right to conscientiously object to taxation for military purposes and take a pivotal role in order to promote peaceful conflict resolution worldwide.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House inquire through its committees into the establishment of a Non-Military Security Fund, to which the military portion of people's taxes could be diverted, if they so desired. The fund's central aim would be to fund non-violent conflict prevention, resolution and management.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
This petition is presented on behalf of Mr. Jon Nott and supported by 612 other people from all parts of the country. I welcome and strongly support it. I ask the Government and the House to consider it because the greatest form of security in the world is gained not through military presence, but through the elimination of conflict and poverty and the causes of conflict.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I wish to present a petition in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). It is in the name of Mr. Rowson and 1,037 other people from my constituency and other parts of the country. There are people who hold strong moral and religious beliefs that stop them taking part in violent activity—that has been recognised in the right of conscientious objection


since 1916—but many of them believe also that they should not be forced by the taxation system directly to fund military action. They want to be able to use their taxes to fund peaceful settlement of international conflicts. I present the petition and offer my support for it.
To lie upon the Table.

Mr. John McDonnell: I wish to present a petition in exactly the same terms as the previous two petitions. It is on behalf of David Hillman and 473 other signatories. On the day when the Government announced that in future they will link aid to ensuring that disarmament occurs in the third world, the right of conscientious objection should be recognised in this country. Many of the signatories are therefore convinced that their taxation should not be spent on weapons of destruction.

To lie upon the Table.

Trawlermen (Compensation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Alan Johnson: Almost 23 years ago, promises were made in this House to distant water trawlermen who were being made redundant by the Government's agreement with Iceland which ended the so-called cod wars by setting a 200-mile fishing limit around the Icelandic coast. On 28 June 1976, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
We shall discuss with the unions and employers the feasibility of an arrangement for compensation for those fishermen directly affected by the settlement who, because they do not have regular contracts of employment, are denied the benefits they might otherwise have received under the redundancy payments Acts.
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said later in that debate:
We are glad that the Minister acknowledges that, because of the nature of their occupation, fishermen will need some special and additional arrangements beyond what is contained in the redundancy payments Acts".
That gave the special scheme cross-party consensus. Later in the debate, the Minister said:
On redundancy, I cannot be more specific: that will be a matter for the Department of Employment. It will have to identify the people affected, but it has been agreed in principle that a special scheme will be needed.
Later, in response to a young MP for Hull, East, called Mr. Prescott, the Minister said:
The Government have decided, after discussions with the trade unions and with the employers, that there will be a special redundancy scheme which will be favourable to those fishermen who are not covered by previous legislation."—[Official Report, 28 June 1976; Vol. 914, c. 27–33.]
Promises were made and they were nothing less than the men concerned deserved. They were courageous; they went out in the most difficult conditions, and distant water fishing was the most dangerous of occupations. They worked in Arctic conditions beyond the north cape bank, and the mortality rate was 14 times that for coal mining.
During the second world war, trawlermen, like other fishermen, played a major part in the allied victory, at a high personal cost. Since the debate to which I have referred and, indeed, since the first debate that I secured in this House in 1997, we have learned the extent to which distant water trawlermen were used by the intelligence services during the cold war. Despite such service to their country and their perilous occupation, none of the promises made by the Minister were kept. The men were wrongly classified as casuals—casual war heroes, casual cold war heroes. Men who had spent their working lives at sea were dismissed as being unworthy of any help. They received no retraining, no resettlement, and not a penny of compensation.
Whole communities in Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood— I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac) want to speak in this debate, and I have given them permission to do so—were made worthless by a Government decision. The Icelandic Government even offered the British Government quotas that were almost equal to that being caught—at that time, British fishermen


were catching about 130 million tonnes—which would have kept the industry going, but, as part of the agreement, the British Government refused.
Compensation was paid by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to trawler owners to decommission their ships. More than £100 million was paid to trawler owners—not one penny of which went to the men. That is very important, because the criteria under which that money was paid was made absolutely clear in a letter on 12 March 1996 from MAFF to another supporter of the campaign, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). MAFF said:
Both Labour and Conservative Governments offered compensation to vessel owners to alleviate the position that the industry found itself in through the loss of these fishing grounds following the imposition of the 200 mile limit. The vessel owners, in particular, found themselves with considerable assets that could no longer be used. 
The trawlermen had considerable assets that could no longer be used, too: their skill, energy and courage.
The MAFF letter went on to say, very interestingly:
No restrictions were placed on vessel owners as to the use of any grant monies received, nor was there any requirement to compensate crew members.
Millions of pounds were paid to trawler owners, but not a penny was paid in compensation to the trawlermen, despite the promises that were made.
The way in which distant water trawlermen have been treated is nothing short of a national disgrace. Left to fight alone, they formed the British Fishermen's Association, and pursued a series of cases through the courts in the 1980s. Eventually, in 1983, the men won a case in the High Court. The victory established that they were employed staff and never casuals. Even then, the Government's response was entirely inadequate. The special scheme still did not materialise. Instead, the Government argued that their only obligation was to provide the minimal terms of the redundancy Act to those trawlermen who would been "expressly discouraged" from pursuing industrial tribunal cases because they were told that they did not qualify for payment. That had two disastrous consequences.
First, a two-year continuity rule was applied. That is in the national redundancy scheme, and might be okay in factories and many other industries, but it had nothing to do with the way in which the trawlermen worked. They worked in a scheme—it was run by the Department of Employment—but it meant that they had to leave on whatever ship was in port at the time. They had continuity in the scheme, but the way in which their industry worked meant that they could not have continuity otherwise, especially for two years with any one employer. As a result, men who had served at sea for 30 years received a few hundreds pounds.
Secondly, the criteria set by the Government paid nothing to men whom the British Fishermen's Association had supported through the numerous cases that it took and lost during the 1980s. In the final perverse aspect of the Government's decision, they said that those men had not been misdirected because they had pursued industrial tribunal cases. Therefore, they received nothing—not one penny, even from the ex gratia scheme.
The result of the most recent general election provides the opportunity for the party of Government in 1976 belatedly to meet the commitments made at the time. On 5 November 1997, with colleagues and members of the BFA, I met the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). A MAFF official was present at that meeting. We made it clear that we wanted a new scheme. The Minister said that he would raise the matter with colleagues at MAFF.
In the subsequent six or seven months we were heartened by the response. We felt that we were making progress. Indeed, we were given great encouragement by letters from the DTI. One, from May 1998, said:
As we both recognise, what the BFA are seeking is actually a new scheme of more general compensation for the loss of employment in their industry"—
absolutely right, and similar to what the trawler owners received—
rather than a reopening of the old ex-gratia payment arrangements which had a specific and limited purpose, and I am of course continuing to pursue this matter with Elliot Morley at MAFF.
MAFF replied:
Ian McCartney and I have been reviewing this issue and will be meeting shortly to consider the position. We will then arrange a further meeting with you and other MPs concerned.
Even the Prime Minister, in response to a petition, signed by 15,000 people, presented by the BFA in June 1998, wrote to me and said:
I understand that Ian McCartney has since been in discussion with Elliot Morley at MAFF and that they intend to invite you and the BFA to another meeting shortly to consider the matter further.
That was July 1998. Since then, there has been no activity at all; there has been silence from the Government Departments.
In summary, promises made by MAFF have not been kept. Millions of pounds have been paid to trawler owners as compensation for the loss of their fishing grounds, but not a penny of compensation has been paid to the trawlermen who lost their livelihoods. I believe that, under the previous Government, MAFF paid something like £30 million to Spanish fishermen for the loss of their licences in 1996, but nothing has been paid by MAFF to British trawlermen who lost their livelihoods.
Time is running out for those men. We ask the Minister to ensure that what appears to be a game of pass the parcel between Departments stops. We ask for the promised meeting to be arranged quickly and we ask that that claim be settled, so that distant water trawlermen have some belated justice and dignity after being so appallingly mistreated by successive Governments over the past 23 years.

Mrs. Joan Humble: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on securing this important debate and allowing me the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly. I also congratulate the British Fishermen's Association on fighting such a long campaign to secure compensation for its members.
I especially single out Peggy Whittacker, who chairs the Fleetwood branch of the BFA. I do so deliberately because today, on international women's day, it is


important to remember the role that women had, and still have, in fishing communities such as Fleetwood—wives and mothers, they were left behind for weeks at a time to raise children, look after the home, pay the bills and wait in the hope that their husbands would return safely from one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. We are talking about whole communities and about families, not just about the men who went out on the boats.
However, I would not like to underestimate how dangerous the job was. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle outlined the dangers. When I speak to men in Fleetwood who fished the waters around Iceland, they tell me horrific stories of cold, ice, fierce seas and frostbite. Those men and their families deserve compensation for the loss of their jobs and livelihoods.
There is now a chance to rectify the broken promises of the past. While vessel owners received handsome compensation, the men received nothing—no training, no help, no compensation. For a large number of Fleetwood men, the original injustices of the 1970s were made worse by the failings of the previous Government's ex gratia scheme. Many of them were share fishermen. They were employees in every sense of the word. They paid tax and national insurance; they saw themselves as employees. But because of the rules imposed by the 1993 scheme, they found that they could not claim. Most of the men who were distant water trawlermen in Fleetwood could not claim and did not benefit, and even those who did received a paltry amount for the long, long years that they spent on the seas. To make things worse, these men are dying off. Even since September 1998, nine men who would qualify within the scheme supported by the BFA have died. How many more have to die before something is done about this matter?
Time is running out. The trawlermen and their families have been treated as third-class citizens for too long. They are looking to the Government to right the wrongs of the past. Just as I back workers at GCHQ, miners and other groups including trawler owners, I fully back the trawlermen in their cause. I look for a positive response from the Government. If there is a more deserving cause, I would like to know what it is. It is about time that we responded positively.

Shona Mclsaac: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on securing the debate. I thank him for allowing me to contribute to it.
We cannot imagine while we are in the Chamber the hardship that the trawlermen endured at sea. We probably cannot imagine either the pain with which their bodies are racked these days as a result of many years fishing in distant waters. We promised them 20 years ago to compensate them for losing their jobs. We are here tonight to ensure that justice is done at last.
My father was off Iceland in 1976. He was not on the trawlers but serving on HMS Russell to protect the fishing fleet during the cod wars. Even with more than 20 years' service in the Royal Navy behind him, my father was appalled at the conditions in which the trawlermen worked. We have heard a little about that already tonight—for example, the 18-hour days, the temperatures that the men endured and the nature of the job, which made it far more dangerous than mining. In addition to

the hardships that they were enduring at sea, there was hardship at home. Their home lives were largely dissipated by a working pattern that meant about three weeks at sea and then only three days at home.
All those years of working in such an environment is taking its toll. The ex-trawlermen who are still with us have ailments such as arthritis, bronchial conditions and heart disease. When people say that the price of fish has been high in human terms, they are certainly not kidding.
My father sailed home on HMS Russell to the security of a job, but the men of our distant water fleet sailed back to redundancy and a bleak future. They were promised compensation but it never came. We have heard that the trawler owners received a tidy packet in compensation but, as ever, the trawlermen, the workers, got nothing.
In August 1996, my right hon. Friend the now Deputy Prime Minister, visiting me in Cleethorpes, told my local newspaper, the Grimsby Evening Telegraph:
It's been an absolute scandal. Owners were paid large sums of money to decommission fishing vessels, but none passed on to the trawlermen themselves.
My right hon. Friend added:
I am an ex-seaman. When there were redundancies in other areas, the seamen were properly compensated. But fishing was not only the hardest of these professions, but has been the worst treated, too.
I shall refer to only a few of the many men in my constituency who worked in that hardest of professions, who lost their livelihoods and have now lost their health. They are still waiting, 20 years on. There is William Webb of Thornton crescent in Cleethorpes. He worked in Icelandic waters until the jobs dried up in 1978. He says:
There was no chance of getting a job. There were so many men and so few jobs left.
Since then he has suffered several strokes. He can hardly walk. He has severe arthritis. Bob Sinclair of Berkeley road in Humberston worked for 30 years until the firms packed up after the cod wars. He has since had both hips replaced. He suffers from osteoarthritis in his spine, hips, knees and ankles.
Finally, Jimmy Gale of Healing says that he feels luckier than some. Two ships that he left temporarily to take Christmas breaks sank, killing many of his colleagues. He describes the job in these terms:
It was the last legalised slavery in the country.
In a way, it was slavery, and like slaves, the trawlermen were given nothing. They have been cast aside and forgotten. Tonight we want to see justice done. Let us have no more talking. To coin a famous phrase, it is now time to do.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on the courage and perseverance with which he has pursued the matter. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Minister that the Members for the great former distant water fishing ports will not rest until compensation is provided on the lines proposed by the British Fishermen's Association for the trawlermen who lost their jobs when we packed up fishing in Icelandic waters in 1976.
As my hon. Friend said, the trawlermen were promised compensation, retraining, new jobs, and support for the industry. The promises were lavish; none of them was


fulfilled. Instead, the men were dumped on the shore, and they did not even get the statutory redundancy money, because they were deemed to be casual workers and therefore entitled to nothing.
That view was proved wrong by Humphrey Forrest of the Humberside Law Centre in the Atkinson Dickenson v. Hellyers case, which showed that the trawlermen were not casual. As a result of that proof, they got minimal redundancy 16 years late, but they got no compensation for the loss of their jobs, their future and their industry. Had it been realised in 1976 when they lost their jobs that they were not in fact casual, they would have got compensation for their jobs at that time, as car workers, steel workers and miners did. The trawlermen would not have had to cash their pathetic pensions just to survive.
Distant water fishing was the only British industry that was run down without any compensation at all for those who worked in it. There was lavish compensation for the owners, running into millions. The owners hit the jackpot, but the fishermen did not even get the lemons to put on the soles, as a result of the death of that industry. It is a scandal for which we can now make only partial reparation, but we should make it by paying them compensation on the terms set out by the British Fishermen's Association. That will pay our debt to those who suffer still from the industrial diseases of fishing— dermatitis, white skin, weeping scabs, arthritis, injuries, loss of limbs and loss of fingers—which were deemed then in fishing to be acts of God, not grounds for compensation.
We can pay our debt to those who lost their pensions because they had to withdraw the money, as they had nothing else to exist on when they lost their jobs. If they did not work again, as many did not, they were not able to accumulate a SERPS pension to comfort them in old age, so they are now relegated to poverty in old age as a result.
By paying compensation, as we must, we can pay our debt to those who worked in Britain's most dangerous industry, where death and injury were their constant companions as they did Britain's business in great and distant waters.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister that in 20 years of fighting the case, I have heard all the excuses. They do not wash. The men were employed, not casual workers. As such, they had a right to compensation, which we should pay now and fulfil our moral responsibility to them a quarter of a century late. They were treated appallingly. We owe them decent treatment and justice. We must pay them what they are owed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on securing tonight's debate, and on the way in which he and my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac), for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have argued the case on behalf of the fishermen whom they represent in their constituencies.
The importance of the debate is reflected by the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) are present. I am surprised that no Member of the official Opposition is present to listen to this important debate.
I and my colleagues in other Departments responsible for the fishing industry naturally have a great deal of sympathy with the situation of the fishermen who lost their jobs as a result of the loss of fishing opportunities when the United Kingdom was excluded from Icelandic fishing grounds 20 years ago. Indeed, I moved to Hull as a student in 1971, when the fishing fleet was at its peak.
We fully appreciate the extremely arduous conditions that the people concerned had to face in what was then, and still remains, one of the most difficult and demanding ways of earning a living. We are also conscious of the role of the industry in providing a much valued element of the nation's diet and the wider contribution that many seafarers have made to the defence of the nation's interests, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle rightly pointed out.
The role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the events following the loss of the Icelandic fishing grounds was in making payments to vessel owners as direct compensation for the loss of fishing opportunities. There is no surviving evidence that any enforceable conditions were attached to those payments. As has been said, owners were free to use that compensation as they chose.
A decommissioning scheme was operated between 1983 and 1986 under which a number of the vessel owners who were affected received payment for decommissioning or for converting their vessels to oil support vessels, but there were certainly no requirements at all on participating owners to make any part of their grant available to the former crews of those vessels. That could certainly be criticised, but it was part of the regulations at the time.
I should also correct my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle: there has been no payment of £30 million to Spanish trawlermen in respect of the loss of fishing opportunities. That matter is still being pursued through the courts and the Government have not conceded any liability at this time.
Considerable time has elapsed since those payments were made and there is no evidence that the legitimate initial recipients acted improperly in any way. However, it is clearly possible to continue to debate the question whether the policy was correct, particularly in the light of the knowledge that we now have about the subsequent evolution of the fishing industry, and the National Audit Office was critical of the later decommissioning scheme and the way that that money was used at that time.
In respect of compensating the crews of the vessels, it was always intended that those payments would be a matter for employment rather than fisheries policy. In his statement to the House on 28 June 1976, Fred Peart, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it


quite clear that the question of redundancy payments to the people affected was not a matter for his Department. He said:
On redundancy, I cannot be more specific: that will be a matter for the Department of Employment. It will have to identify the people affected, but it has been agreed in principle that a special scheme will be needed."—[Official Report, 28 June 1976; Vol. 914, c. 30.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle has already pointed that out.
Those responsibilities, which formerly lay with the Department of Employment, rest with the Department of Trade and Industry. Thus it is clear that any question of redundancy payments to trawlermen has always been considered as a question of employment policy rather than one for Fisheries Ministers.

Consequently, although I and my ministerial colleagues in MAFF stand ready to play our part in responding to the case that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle and my hon. Friends, the final decision on whether to meet the trawlermen's claims is ultimately one for my ministerial colleagues at the DTI. However, I will convey to them the depth of feeling within the House and that which I know exists in the communities affected. I will also convey the strength of feeling that has been so clearly articulated by those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I might add that I fully share and support those feelings.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve midnight.